Exposing Michael Moore's Skewed Theology

My blog friend Neil over at Eternity Matters has an excellent post up that rebuts the skewed theology that Michael Moore tried to pass off as "Christian" on Sean Hannity's show last night.

Eternity Matters: Fallacies ‘R Us — Michael Moore preaches about Jesus and economics

Excerpt:

Michael Moore’s new movie is Capitalism: A Love Story and he wrote For Those of You on Your Way to Church This Morning …a note from Michael Moore on his blog. He makes the same mistakes that many Christians and non-Christians do, namely taking verses out of context to match his view of the word and his version of God. He also makes major errors in analyzing capitalism.

My comments there:


Christinewjc, on October 7th, 2009 at 10:45 pm Said:
I saw Moore’s interview with Sean Hannity last night. Sean tried to put up some good arguments and rebuttals to Michael’s skewed theology. Sean succeeded at times. But you, Neil, have done an excellent job of exposing Moore’s hypocrisy and his deliberate heresy and misrepresentation of Scripture. You should send a copy of this blogpost to Hannity! Maybe he will share it on his radio and/or T.V. show!


Christinewjc, on October 7th, 2009 at 10:48 pm Said:
Forgot to mention that the only reason why I think Moore appeared on Hannity’s show was because he thought he could appeal to Christians to go and see his stupid movie! Apparently, the ticket sales have been abysmal – just like Moore’s attempt at Christian theology!

Hat tip:


Eternity Matters

Good To Infiltrate Heretical Territory - Or Not?

Ran across a blog called Slaughter of the Sheep. There is an interesting conversation going on between myself and Ken Silva in the "Robert Schuller, Ravi Zacharias and the Rethink Conference 2009" thread.

After you read the post at the above link, you will notice several really good comments. For this post, I am re-posting just the ones between Ken Silva and I (so far):

I know for a FACT that Miles McPherson is attending to share the Biblical Truth to all who will be there. He did the same thing last year. He does not water down the true Gospel message for ANYONE.

Perhaps Ravi Z. is doing the same? Just a thought.

Perhaps it is necessary in this day and age of heresy and apostasy to infiltrate the heretics and apostates in order to steer them back in the right direction?

If they don’t, THAT’S when the Sola Scriptura Bible-based leaders may have to eventually “shake the dust off their sandals.”

By: Christinewjc on September 15, 2008
at 4:31 pm

Ken's reply:

“Perhaps it is necessary in this day and age of heresy and apostasy to infiltrate the heretics and apostates in order to steer them back in the right direction?”

Or maybe this day and age of heresy and apostasy is a judgment from God ala 1 Peter 4:17 because we’ve allowed the infiltration of these heretics and apostates who refused to be steered back in the right direction?
By: Ken Silva on September 15, 2008
at 8:02 pm

Very true, Ken. However, I’d like to know your opinion of Pastor Miles’ attempts to share the truth at their heretical get-togethers?

Speaking of “refusal to be steered back”, the “gay christian” movement is a perfect example of those who refuse to be steered back in the right direction. Several other bloggers and I have posted biblical evidence of their heresy - but they don’t care - AT ALL. What matters most is their “feelings.”

When do we “shake the dust off our sandals” in such a case? I’m not sure - are you?

I, and many others, keep trying to reach them. Sometimes we just need to pray from them.
By: Christinewjc on September 15, 2008
at 8:33 pm

Christine,

Please know I say this gently, k. I’ve not been impressed with what I’ve seen from McPherson as yet. The Adam and Eve “blinged out” opening of the new venue was not right.

That said, in a setting like ReThink he’d be dealing with a language barrier. By that I mean, as with Ray Comfort at the Word Faith conference, these people reinterpret Christian terminology.

For example to Rob ert Schuller “sin” is “negative self-esteem” so unless one very specifically defines their terms those to whom they “witness” to simply think they agree. The speakers there would all claim to be Christians anyway.
By: Ken Silva on September 15, 2008
at 9:30 pm

Oops…need to correct my last sentence. Meant to write:

“I, and many others, keep trying to reach them. Sometimes we just need to pray for them.”

Ken,

I am disappointed to hear that you are not “impressed” with Miles McPherson, but that is certainly your right.

I am not sure where you got this from:

The Adam and Eve “blinged out” opening of the new venue was not right.

Oftentimes, Pastor Miles says things with the kind of verbiage that young people can identify with. It is not meant to mock or replace the truth of God’s Word on the subject at hand.

I’m learning not to be too picayune about such things. As long as the RESULTS do not compromise the Gospel message or what is contained in God’s Word, then using terms that I’m not personally familiar with doesn’t bother me.

I will admit to you that I had the same reservations about Miles’ appearance(s) at both the “ReThink” conference and (especially!!) “The Secret” conference. However, when I listened to his presentation (and saw the results of people who attended that were searching for SOMETHING - but not knowing that they needed Jesus Christ) and then found out that out of all of the speakers, they saw the truth being shared by Miles - I had a different perspective on why he attended.
By: Christinewjc on September 16, 2008
at 12:57 pm

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

One more brief point. When Miles was backstage, the previous speaker at The Secret conference was Tony Robbins. He told Pastor Miles (paraphrased here), ‘None of us believe in this “Secret bull****.’ Glad you are here to share the truth.’

Admittedly, it takes a very strong Christian pastor, leader and apologist to go into “heresy territory” and share the Gospel Truth. I, and the thousands who attend The Rock Church see this unique ability in Pastor Miles.
By: Christinewjc on September 16, 2008
at 1:02 pm

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Note that my last two comments are awaiting moderation.

What do you think of this exchange?

As a born-again, Bible-believing Christian, what are your thoughts about "infiltrating" heretical groups and conferences and sharing the Gospel Truth with the audiences there?

Do you think that this type of action just might be badly needed in this day and age?

Or, do you think that showing up for such conferences damages the credibility of any born-again, Bible believing and teaching pastor/speaker/evangelist?

HT: Slaughtering the Sheep blog

P.S. Opinions among Christians on this are probably all over the place, so don't hesitate to write just because you disagree with mine.

Correction and Reproof

If anyone here has read this post and has been following the 100 plus comments at this blog, perhaps you might be able to explain why my last comment caused deletion of the link here.

Uh oh...I think I must have angered the author of that blog. It appears that the link to this post was deleted. Must have been something I wrote that did not agree with his particular denominational ideology? I don't know.

This is a copy of my latest comment (and most likely was responsible for the link deletion):

Well said, Cindy. People can get so testy when it comes to accuracy in apologetics.

You wrote:

"Both men share platforms and churches and venues with those who directly teach that Jesus was/is ETERNALLY subordinate to the Father within the Trinity. I believe that that concept is very relevant here. The modern version of subordinationist teachings arose out of a need to bolster up the complemenarian argument, but it is not their origins that are of concern to me but the teaching and the concept that Jesus is of lesser authority than the Father.

Note what Jesus stated in these verses:

Jhn 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou [then], Shew us the Father?

Jhn 10:30 I and [my] Father are one.

We are only human and are prone to error unless we strictly adhere to what God's Word reveals to us.

I think it is healthy to discuss important issues like this one in order to prevent any gradual (or quick) slide into heresy.

It isn't a question of who is ultimately correct in these debates...it's the revelation of God's Truth that wins the day.

Pro 15:10 Correction [is] grievous unto him that forsaketh the way: [and] he that hateth reproof shall die.

2Ti 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:


2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

All of us need to head the message of those verses...including me. Correction by other believers is good. I find myself being very grateful when corrected according to Scripture. I think it behooves us all to have such an attitude. We can't let pride get in the way.

When I was a "babe in Christ" and had not studied the Bible yet, I leaned upon the following verse. After over 20 years of study, I still do!

1Cr 2:2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

God bless your day and your walk with Christ.

I did visit Cindy's blog and after just a brief scan there, found that there are probably issues that I don't agree with there. But I still stick behind what I posted at Camp's blog. If someone feels the need to correct me via Scripture - go right ahead. I'm always open to correction.

Politics for Ordinary Radicals

Leave it to the CNN Politics.com news site to share a story about two, politically leftist writers (of course!) - who happened to name their book, "Jesus for President" - to gleefully claim that these two men are endorsing "what is at the heart of Jesus."

Oh really???

As I had mentioned briefly in a previous post, how strange is it that the authors chose to only have part of the title of their book "Jesus for President" on the cover. They eliminated the "Politics for Ordinary Radicals" phrase! Hmmm......

Sorry fellas - but your book (with it's unfortunate use of Jesus' name in the title) is, for the most part, focused on getting their typical Bush-hating, anti-war, pro-Marxism screed out into the hands of other young evangelicals.

For shame!

How sad it is that these men have chosen to use Jesus, and God's Word, the Bible in ways that distort the true message of the gospel. How unfortunate that their own minds have skewed hundreds of Bible verses in order to promote their own worldview. There are just too many errors in their writing to list them all here.

How terribly sad it is to read that they compare Harry Truman with Hitler! This, as well as the many examples of hate-mongering done towards traditional Bible-believing, Christ following, true gospel sharing, church fellowship and Bible studying evangelicals (which, of no surprise, includes the rejection of their own parents beliefs) are quite evident in their ranting contained within the pages of this book. It is the Bush-hating, far-left secular humanist's dream to have them on their side of the political spectrum!

Do these authors know that they are using God to promote their own, anti-American political agenda?

True Christians allow God to use THEM! And, not to use His Son to promote a Marxist political agenda!!

Everyone has a worldview. Some worldviews are better than others. The Biblical worldview is having "the mind of Christ" as Paul reiterates in his epistle.

How can I judge these young men so harshly - you may ask? Because they have been deceived, that's why.

For example. In the article link above we read:

But these voters say views on abortion and homosexuality won't define them in November. The environment and social justice are moving to the forefront of their discussions.

Now, in their book we read:

"We are dying and killing for abstract nouns like freedom and democracy...but this is not the gospel of Jesus Christ." - Letter from a U.S. soldier in Iraq

So...let's see now. One disgruntled soldier in Iraq skews their "Christian" worldview to agree with a statement like that? Nouns like freedom and democracy are abstract nouns?

These authors won't let "abortion nor homosexuality define them in November." Abortion has killed 52,275,770 BABIES since that horrible ruling in 1973. That amount of babies killed through abortion will have increased by the time you view the site. THAT is the evil of our time! If you listen to, and view, the brief video at that link, you will discover that abortion has killed ONE THIRD of Shane Claiborne and Chris Haw's (authors of "Jesus for President") generation! This is FAR MORE, MILLIONS MORE than the deaths of our brave military men and women fighting valiantly in the current war against radical Islamic terrorism!

What is wrong with this picture?

What would Jesus say about that?

But the book gets worse people - MUCH WORSE.

The authors compare our great nation, liberators of millions of oppressed peoples around the globe, to Rome's empire! I can see where they get their skewed theology. They read books written by John Dominic Crossan.

Excerpt:

In the introduction of his book In Search of Paul: How Jesus' Apostle Opposed Rome's Empire with God's Kingdom, biblical scholar John Dominic Crossan asks this haunting question: "Who now is Caesar and where now is Christ?" As we consider the theology being preached from the pulpits by both pastors and politicians (and these days, its hard to tell them apart), we need to contemplate this question. Fortunately, more and more Bible-literate Christians are deeply disturbed by the skewed theology of empire. It is becoming more and more clear that the Pax Americana is not helping the world get any closer to understanding the crucified Christ and his gospel of grace. 29

O.K. We can see where they are getting their theological opinions from. But take a look at the authors' footnote. It's quite the eye-opener to their true agenda in writing this book!

29 The essence of our book is not dependent on whether the United States is truly a prideful empire. Christianity proclaims an alternate allegiance even to citizens of humble nations. And the point is certainly not that only the United States is one of the beastly powers. Among Russia, China, Rwanda, Belgium, and countless others, it would be quite a competition as to which dictatorship tops the list of most blood shed and worst publicly legitimated insanity. But to see the bad fruits of power is an important connection to make for those who have a white-knuckle grip on both the cross and the flag. When we take a good look at the history of the United States, we must face the reality that the U.S. is not, as Barak (sic) Obama (and countless others) said, "the last great hope for humanity." This not only is false according to the standards of secular history but also is heretical for us in the church. This is the kind of stuff that made John of Patmos seethe (not to mention God). And in the scope of history, the United States is a young project that doubtlessly will fall--whether in a few or in many years.

Quite the patriots...aren't they? /sarcasm

Notice how the CNN article LIED about their "neutrality" concerning the upcoming election!

CNN article:

They endorse no candidate and make no effort to sway the voters for one party or another.

Think that's bad enough? It's only the beginning. On another page, the authors discuss "idols and images". They quote Exodus 20:4, Lev. 26:1, and 4 Ezra 4:11:

"Therefore, you will surely disappear, you eagle...so that the whole earth, will be freed from your violence." The Eagle will not live forever, blessed be the Lamb.

Can you guess what is pictured next to these verses? You'll never guess so I'll tell you. They have sketches of three bombs dropping from the sky with "Made in U.S.A." stamped on them!

Some of the additional things written on the page do not even make sense. In one box, they quote Crossan as stating that, "over 50 percent of the Roman budget went towards the Roman military." Next, they write, "Of each dollar paid in taxes, 36 cents goes toward the military of the United States.

Duh!! Do these guys even know history? Do they know that military (and police) protection was the original (and only) reasons for taxes in the first place??

Here's the quote that reads a bit convoluted:

"Only God can make an image of God's self...and God did. Look in the mirror or look in the slums.

ONLY SOMETHING SACRED CAN BE DE*SACRATED.

Is "de*sacrated" even a genuine word? It's obviously misspelled.

Desecrated:
–verb (used with object), -crat·ed, -crat·ing.

1. to divest of sacred or hallowed character or office.
2. to divert from a sacred to a profane use or purpose.
3. to treat with sacrilege; profane.

[Origin: 1665–75; de- + -secrate, modeled on consecrate]

What on earth are they talking about? Sounds like gibberish to me!

Then, we have evidence of their "youthful" views:

"It was once said, if you want to know your idols, consider what you are willing to kill for. WHAT ARE IDOLS?"

Next to that quote, they have a crude drawing of a television with "KILL YOUR TV" written on it. Quite the non-sequitur, isn't it?

It gets worse! On another page in the book they have a drawing of Jesus carrying the cross with a soldier holding a bazooka sitting on the cross behind Jesus!

Are you getting the picture of their skewed thinking yet?

Do they represent many of our young evangelicals today? I hope not! I PRAY NOT!!

Now, the authors aren't crazy. I just think that they are sorely misguided. For instance, read this quote:

Aelius Aristides: "Now the earth itself and its inhabitants have been granted universal security which is evident to all. Every war begins with fear."

Ah ha! That explains it! "Every war begins with fear." Period. Nothing else? What about being attacked? What about defending our nation and our peoples from further attacks?

I could go on and on and on. There is so much skewed theology applied to anti-war rhetoric in this book it would make your head spin!!

Lastly, I will share just why these authors (and their followers, presumably) do not concern themselves with the proliferation of the homosexual agenda in the political, social, educational, judicial, and church arenas:

What was so evil about Sodom? "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned: they did not help the poor and needy" (Ezek. 16:49). That's not what we learned in Sunday school.

Whoo boy! Talk about leaving out some of the other equally important details!! Ah, but, if they included any other details about The Days of Lot and the Days of Noah, then they would have to address their errant theological opinion that the homosexual agenda "doesn't define them" or influence their voting preferences.

Look at the skewed way they describe the meaning of being "born-again" :

"So being born again redefines family: it grants a new way to see the world, a way to see right past the artificial borders we create and proclaim a deeper allegiance and affection. For those who pledge allegiance to the kingdoms of this world, Jesus preached good news: repent and become born again, "see the kingdom," and find a new identity. This is not a set of political suggestions for the world; this is about invoking and embodying the alternative. handwritten: (More on that later.) All of this is an invitation to join a peculiar people--those with no king but God, who practice jubilee economics and make the world new. This is not the old-time religion of going to heaven; this is about bringing heaven to the world."

We can agree with some of what is written in that paragraph. However, the ultimate point of being born again in Jesus Christ is to humble ourselves, confess and repent of our sin; then, invite Jesus Christ into our hearts where he will reside through the power of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit of God.

Question. Do the authors even mention this? No. It is no where to be found. Notice that the cross isn't mentioned in the above paragraph, either. Finding a "new identity" isn't defined either. Whose identity are they emulating? We are not told. Plus, that last sentence sounds more like Oprah's New Age theology rather than genuine Christianity.

Your thoughts?

*******
P.S. Apparently, Shane Claiborne is 33 years old and Chris Haw is 27. However, it appears that their radicalism is appealing to 20-something-year old evangelical Christians. God help us!

*******
Update: SJ Camp has a somewhat related post regarding skewed theology and how important it is to stick to biblical truth over at Camp On This

Excerpt:

"Gifted men of God, like Keller, know this and know better than this. When they flirt with pushing the edge of biblical truth by redefining God in today's postmodern terms out of the pragmatic emerging church framework, they make it difficult for the many of us who want to trust them in how they handle God's Word to do so. But as in this case, orthodoxy it seems was not the prime consideration; but relating to an audience, being clever, and cutting edge. IOW, pragmatics again.

Biblical terminology should not be stretched to a place that is foreign to the meaning of those words as found in God's Word. It can be very confusing for younger believers in the Lord, it can be gangrenous to the body of Christ in general, and the fallout to maintaining a right view of God compromised. "

(bold mine)

Jesus Never Said?

I have read such opinions before like this one over at GCMWatch, so many times. Frankly, it is often used as just an excuse to try and get around an issue of sinful sexual deviancy that people just don't want to face.

My previous post was about protecting children from porn in libraries. In the comment section at GCMWatch, one commenter acknowledged that porn addiction has had a stronghold upon his life for 25 years. IMHO, the commenter made some good points, but at the same time, was trying to show that tolerance and compassion alone trumps confession and repentance. I would ask, "Do you think that establishing a church that affirms your addiction would be a good thing?"

Where is the accountability? Scripture is filled with the need for Christians to be accountable to the church as a whole and individual Christians, in particular.

Yet, this is exactly what the gay "christian" churches are NOT doing. They teach the "love, grace, mercy and forgiveness" of Christ without acknowledgement of the sacrificial cross of confession, repentance (which means willfully turning away from sin - not celebrating it or trying to whitewash it through man's reprobate ideology) or recognizing the sanctification process that is to occur once born again in Jesus Christ.

Where's the accountability in that?

I'm not saying to "throw people out of the church." What I'm saying is that some church leaders are deliberately keeping people in the bondage of homosexual sin through their reprobate theology. This is the same error as The Doctrine of the Nicolatians.

The idea that "Jesus never said anything against homosexuality" just shows the ignorance of people who don't know Christ and haven't read and studied the Bible. If they had, then they would realize how ridiculous that statement truly is.

Unfortunately, their logic is terribly flawed. Since such people believe (and teach others) that Jesus never said anything about homosexuality - that must mean that it is okay, right?


Mission America (quote below) has provided excellent talking points that specifically address this very issue. However, I would ask readers to also keep in mind that other sexual sins are involved in the warnings within Scripture to "flee sexual immorality."

1Cr 6:15 Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make [them] the members of an harlot? God forbid.


1Cr 6:16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.


1Cr 6:17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.


1Cr 6:18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.


1Cr 6:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost [which is] in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?


1Cr 6:20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.

1Ti 6:9 But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and [into] many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition.


1Ti 6:10 For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.


1Ti 6:11 ¶ But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness.


1Ti 6:12 Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also called, and hast professed a good profession before many witnesses.

2Ti 2:18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.


2Ti 2:19 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.


2Ti 2:20 But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour.


2Ti 2:21 If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, [and] prepared unto every good work.


2Ti 2:22 Flee also youthful lusts: but follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart.


2Ti 2:23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.


2Ti 2:24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all [men], apt to teach, patient,


2Ti 2:25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;


2Ti 2:26 And [that] they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.

1Cr 6:18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.

Consider these facts from Mission America:

He (Jesus) also never said anything about rape, incest or domestic violence. Are those things okay, too?


There are many teachings and deeds of Christ that are not included in the Gospel accounts, as John writes in John 21:25.


Christ did say that God created people “in the beginning” as male and female, and that marriage is the union of one man and one woman joined together as “one flesh.” (Matthew 19:4-6 and Mark 10:6-9) Nothing is said about any other type of union.


When He discussed sexual morality, Christ had a very high standard, clearly affirming long-standing Jewish law. He told the woman caught in adultery to “Go and sin no more.” (John 8:11) He warned people not only that the act of adultery was wrong, but even adulterous thoughts. (Matthew 5:28) And he shamed the woman at the well (John 4:18) by pointing out to her that he knew she was living with a man who was not her husband.


Christ used the destruction of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah*as an example of God’s wrath ( Matthew 10:15, Mark 6:11,Luke 10:12, and Luke 17:29). Throughout the Old Testament, prophets clearly described these cities as being notorious for the practice of homosexuality. (Genesis 18:20, Genesis 19:4-5, Isaiah 3:9, Jeremiah 23:14, Ezekiel 16:46-59). Jesus certainly knew that this was how the comparison would be understood.


Christ was God incarnate (in the flesh) here on earth. He was the long-expected Messiah, which was revealed in Matthew 16:13- 20, Matthew 17:5-9, Mark 8:27-30, Luke 4:16-30, Luke 9: 18-21,John 4:25-26, John 8:57-59 and elsewhere. As one with God, He was present from the beginning (John 1: 1-13; Colossians 1:15-17; Ephesians 3:9 and elsewhere).

So, Jesus was part of the Godhead as the laws were handed down through Moses to Israel and eventually to the whole world. This Old Testament law clearly prohibited homosexuality (Genesis 19, Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13; Deuteronomy 23:18 and elsewhere). The apostles understood this also, as shown by Paul’s writing in Romans 1:24-27, Peter’s in 2 Peter 2:4-22, and John’s in Revelation 22:15.

So--the apostles, who were taught by Christ, clearly understood that homosexuality was a sin as it has always been. When people say, “Jesus said nothing about homosexuality,” they reveal that they really haven’t understood Scripture, or Who Christ is. Maybe some of these points can help them toward a clearer understanding.

Two comments at my message board regarding the above quote:

"This was an excellent reply based upon the truth of the Bible. Christ is God, the Holy Spirit (God also) inspired the Bible's writing, So when God declared homosexuality an abomination in the Old Testament, it was in fact Christ (God) who was the one declaring that. So, Christ did say a lot about homosexuality...everytime God says it in the Bible, Christ (part of the Godhead) is dittoing it."

"Excellent indeed! ... John 1 explains that Christ was GOD in the flesh and was the Creator who made everything, including every word written by man to be included in the Bible."

* Jesus also said that the signs of the end times would be "as in the Days of Noah" and "the "Days of Lot."

Mat 24:37 But as the days of Noe [were], so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Luk 17:26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.

Luk 17:28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;

Luk 17:29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed [them] all.

Luk 17:30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.

Why do you think that Jesus made reference to both "the Days of Noah" and "the Days of Lot?" That link to a fellow Christian brother's essay clearly lays it out. We also see why when we look at additional Scripture:

Gen 7:4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.


Gen 7:5 And Noah did according unto all that the LORD commanded him.

Job 22:15 Hast thou marked the old way which wicked men have trodden?


Job 22:16 Which were cut down out of time, whose foundation was overflown with a flood:


Job 22:17 Which said unto God, Depart from us: and what can the Almighty do for them?

Luk 17:26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.


Luk 17:27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.


Hbr 11:7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.


1Pe 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.


1Pe 3:21 The like figure whereunto [even] baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

2Pe 2:5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth [person], a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;

2Pe 3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 2Pe 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

Note how warnings went unheeded.

Note how few people followed the Word of God.

Note the sexual immorality that was rampant in Sodom and Gomorrah.

Now, think about today.

What would Jesus have us do in these days?

See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ. Colossians 2:8

The eyes of the Lord move to and fro throughout the earth to show Himself strong to those whose hearts are fully committed to Him. 2 Chronicles 16:9

HT: GCMWatch

The Holiness Factor

Shortly after the homosexual pseudo-"marriage" decision in CA came out, Pastor D.L. Foster posted the contention made by a pro-gay minister named Matt Tittle who stated:

"As a minister in a denomination that ordains gay clergy and offers all of its members the full benefits of membership in a loving faith community, I have conducted several same-sex weddings. In my experience, the love and commitment between gay and lesbian couples is usually even stronger than that of heterosexual couples. Their love has to be incredibly strong to withstand the discrimination and oppression they face on a daily basis."

I think that this represents the next phase of the gay "christian" movement and it's role in the radical homosexual agenda. For now, let's just call it the "we're better than you are" phase.

If you go to this link:

The "hetero vs. homo" debate: is it a valid one?

you will read some great comments by solidly biblical Christians. You will also read comments made by a pro-gay advocate. Decide for yourselves which side is winning that debate.

Here is Pastor Foster's question posed on his site:

"The question: is the “hetero vs homo” debate a valid one (or even necessary one) for a Christian? Why or why not?"

Here is my comment:

No. It’s not valid nor necessary. This is why.

First. The book of Leviticus informs us that whenever improper (sinful) sexual relations occur, there was need for a sin offering (sacrificed animal) to cleanse them of their immorality. The ONLY sexual activity that required just washing afterward (for cleanliness purposes) was when the sexual activity between husband (one man) and wife (one woman) occurred. No sin offering (sacrificed animal) was necessary because the marriage bed is pure (holy) and undefiled due to God’s covenant for this relationship. This is just not so for any other type of sexual behavior or bond.

Second, just as D.L. pointed out:

"That’s why Rev.Tittle is wrong. Gay couples who tout their relational longevity (against heterosexuality) mean little when you look at it from a righteous standpoint. There are people who do wrong things for years, but longevity never sanctifies sin."

The holiness factor is missing from Rev. Tittle’s claim! I glanced through the article, and I did not see one mention of God’s call for His people towards holiness.

“Be holy, because I am holy” (Leviticus 11:44-45), is the theme of Leviticus. It is an important theme throughout the Word of God.

Rom 11:16 For if the firstfruit [be] holy, the lump [is] also [holy]: and if the root [be] holy, so [are] the branches.

Holiness is perfection. As believers in Christ, we are to strive for holiness in our lives.

Mat 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

It is true that we will not be perfectly holy until we meet Jesus in heaven. However, holiness is our Christian destiny. We are to be “holy to the LORD.” Since that is what we will be one day and since “without holiness no one will see the Lord” (Hebrews 12:14), we must strive to be holy now.

The Bible emphasizes holiness because a lack of holiness is what accounts for our inability to love rightly and do anything else rightly, for that matter. The reason that so many “love” relationships are so screwed up is because our relationship to God and others are not what they should be and need to be.

I don’t see advocates of the gay “christian” movement ever talk about holiness - at least not genuine holiness as discussed in the Bible. People can claim all day long that their “relationship” is 'holy'. However, if it is not sanctioned (nor sanctified through covenant) by God as revealed in the Scriptures, then they are guilty of adding to the Bible!

D.L., I must tell you how extremely important your ministry here on this blog really is! People who only “see with their reprobate eyes” and do not “hear what the Spirit is telling the churches” are in danger of being deceived into thinking they are saved when they are not! That means that they could miss heaven. That means that they will not be recognized as one of His own! When the sheep and the goats are separated, they will be told to go away because they have not believed in the real Jesus! Jesus will tell them, “I know you not.” (See Matthew 25:1-12)

Look at 1 John 3:2-3

1Jo 3:2 Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is.

1Jo 3:3 And everyone who has this hope in Him purifies himself, just as He is pure.

More evidence that we are to strive to be holy!

Read the entire chapter of 1 John 3. In it, we discover who the true brothers in Christ are. They are people like D.L., who is not afraid to tell homosexuals what they need to hear; rather than a “Rev.” like Tittle who just cares about “tickling their ears” and telling them what they want to hear.

*******

This morning, several thoughts came to my mind regarding this issue. The opinion presented by this pro-gay “reverend” Tittle ignores God’s Word on the subjects of both the sin of homosexual behavior, as well as the covenant and sanctity of God-ordained, one man cleaving to one woman marriage.

Both of Tittle’s errors appear to be similar to the temptation that Satan used to lure Eve to disobey God. “Did God really say….”

HT: GCM Watch

Add-on: Tittle doesn't mention God or Jesus Christ in his article, either. When he signs off "keep the faith," one is left to wonder in whom or what?

Gifts, Jesus, & Politics

My son and daughter always get me the best presents! For Mother's Day, my son bought tickets to the Spirit West Coast Concert this month! I'm really excited to attend because several of my favorite Christian artists and bands will be appearing! Hopefully we can encourage a group to attend with us!

Brief Spirit West Coast video

He gave me the funniest card! On the cover was a photo of a dog (looked similar to our puggle!) with a towel wrapped around it's head and two pop-out cucumbers on it's eyes.

The card read:

It's your special time, your day to be #1...
Then it's back to me the rest of the year, right?
Happy Mother's Day

Sooooo cute! Really made me laugh, too, because it's so true! Our puggle (Sasha) runs my life! Ha ha

My laughter turned to tears...of joy...when I read what my son wrote:

Mom,
I don't think I'll every find a better card than this one! Thank you so much for everything you do for us. We are blessed to have been raised by such a loving and caring person. I don't thank God enough for you because I should be doing that everyday! I love you so much, Happy Mother's Day!

Love, your son! (and Sasha)

My daughter's card made me cry just by reading the cover! LOL There is a picture of two cartoon-like women on a blanket in a meadow with a picnic basket nearby.

My Mom
if I had to get right down to the reason you're everything from my hero to my friend, it would be this:

your constant, strong, forgiving love.

Inside:

I believe that God is good and kind and generous - I feel that way because He gave me you.

Happy Mother's Day
with Love
(heart shape) always,
your daughter

Then she wrote in the card:

Mama-
Happy Mother's Day! I hope today is everything you could have wanted on Mother's Day. I hope you know how much I truly appreciate all that you do for me. All the advice you give, support, guidance, and even just the random chats...none of it goes unnoticed. Even if I don't say it enough, know I want to say it a thousand times! & more! THANK YOU! for all you do for me and for being the best mom and friend I could have ever hoped, wished, and prayed for. You are an amazing woman. I love you so so very much. AND of course you're beautiful! & YOUNG! :-)

If only the "beautiful and young" part were true! Ha! I look much older than my profile pic, now. Ah well. See what three years of blogging can do to a person? heh heh

Now that she is about to turn 21 soon, our chats often include how grateful she is that I didn't allow her to do certain things when she was growing up. She has seen the fallout from the errors of other young women who either did not have such guidance or didn't heed the warnings and advice of their moms. It is very gratifying to now know that she sees such past restrictions as helpful in avoiding the painful consequences that she has seen others around her now (unfortunately) bearing.

She gave me the greatest gifts, too! A CD by Natalie Grant, a book called "On The Anvil - Stories on being shaped into God's Image" by Max Lucado, and a book called "Jesus For President."

"On The Anvil" is Max Lucado's first book. He wrote it back in 1985. It has been re-published this year. I like what is written on the back cover:

We are all somewhere in the blacksmith's shop.

We are either on the scrap pile,
IN THE MASTER'S HANDS ON THE ANVIL,
Or in the tool chest.

Some of us have been in all three.

In this classic collection of inspirational reading, best-selling author Max Lucado takes us on a tour of the blacksmith's shop - examining every tool and looking in every corner, from the shelves to the workbench, from the water to the fire...

For those who make the journey -- who leave the heap, enter the fire, and dare to be pounded on God's anvil--a grand privilege awaits: to be called one of God's chosen instruments.

SEE YOU IN THE SHOP.

Since I didn't recognize the authors of "Jesus for President," I flipped through it briefly to get a "feel" for it. Well, the first well-known name that I ran across was "Tony Campolo." O.K. now I knew that this was another book similar to "Unchristian" - which hails from the liberal Christianity crowd.

In the back of the book are photos of stacks of book titles. I didn't recognise many of them. Then I realized why! Towards the end of one stack on the second page of these photos, there was more evidence of the liberalism I was about to read in this new book because Brian McLaren's book (Everything Must Change) was listed there.

While flipping through the book, I noticed this subtitle on page 106:

"On Citizenship in Heaven and Being Born Again."

I will have a lot more to say about that particular chapter. For now, I will just give you a glimpse of what the authors think being "born again" means. At the end of this section, they write:

This is not the old-time religion of going to heaven; this is about bringing heaven to the world.

Today, I decided to see the reviews on this book at Amazon.com.

There were only a few negative reviews, but I found one in particular to be quite accurate in his evaluation based on some of what I had already seen and read in the book.

It's Sad: Legitimate theological issues are hampered by awful logic. by "Phil K."

It's funny. Pastor Miles McPherson tells the congregation to "vote God." I don't think that he had what the authors of "Jesus for President: Politics for Ordinary Radicals" had in mind!

Christine

P.S. How strange that the authors only have "Jesus for President" on the cover. They eliminated the "Politics for Ordinary Radicals" phrase! Hmmm......

*******
Update: Just received an email with a link to Dr. David Jeremiah's new book called, Hopeful Parenting. Looks really good!

Beware Of "Useful" Religion

During "Rev." Jeremiah Wright's National Press Club speech, he was asked about whether or not Christianity claims exclusivism. The question was presented through Jesus' words:

Jhn 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

"Rev." Wright then replied utilizing additional words spoken by Jesus from another Bible verse:

Jhn 10:16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, [and] one shepherd.

Here is that portion of the transcript:

MODERATOR: Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man cometh unto the father but through me." Do you believe this? And do you think Islam is a way to salvation?

REVEREND WRIGHT: Jesus also said, "Other sheep have I who are not of this fold."

There are several things to notice. First, the moderator wanted to know whether or not Wright believed in Jesus' claim that He is "the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but by Me." The second part of this question included whether or not Wright believes that Islam is also a way to salvation.

Wright's answer implied that those following Islam might be the "other sheep" that Jesus was referring to in that verse.

If he had answered that the people who formerly followed Islam (part of the Gentiles referred to in the verses you will see below and at the Scripture Knowledge links) but were converted to Christianity, then he would have answered correctly. However, he did not say anything about conversion from that false religion. [Please see Question: Is Allah God? Answer: No!]

Apparently, Wright thought that John 10:16 either trumped or invalidated John 14:6 in some way. Nothing could be further from the truth!

First, look at Blue Letter Bible's Treasury of Scripture Knowledge regarding this verse.

I can post just two verses from that wealth of information at the "treasury" link which will explain exactly what Jesus was talking about.

Isa 49:6 And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth.

Jhn 11:52 And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.

Isaiah 49:6 is a prophecy about the coming Messiah - Jesus - as being the "Light of the world" to both the Jews and the Gentiles.

In the BLB Scripture Knowledge section for Isaiah 49:6, we see many verses from John describing Jesus as our Light, and coming to earth for our salvation. Notice the additional Isaiah verses at that link which support the fact that Jesus was referring to the Gentiles as being "sheep that are not of this fold."

Wright is guilty of applying his own opinions to the Scripture verse in question. He is not using proper exegesis, Sola Scriptura, hermeneutics, or, the fact that Scripture interprets Scripture.

There are far too many analytical and interpretation checks and balances in Scripture that can easily be found by anyone who is willing to do the research. This is why those who are steeped in error - through either following or preaching errant theology - are easily found out!

If you have not read my previous post, or have not read Faultline U.S.A.'s excellent blogpost on Revisiting Obama's Liberation Theology, I urge you to read them. Of course, it is up to readers here whether or not they choose to read them before or after reading this new post. Either way, you will find that the errors of Liberation Theology merely leads to a kind of "useful" religion.

Over the past few weeks, I have been reading a fabulous Christian Apologetics book called "To Everyone An Answer: A Case For The Christian Worldview." It is truly an excellent resource!

The back cover of the book states:

In a society fascinated by spirituality but committed to religious pluralism, the Christian worldview faces sophisticated and aggressive opposition. A prior commitment to diversity, with its requisite openness and relativistic outlook, has meant for skeptic, critics and even many Christians that whatever Christianity is, it cannot be exclusively true or salvific.

When "Rev." Wright misused the John 10:16 quote at that news conference, he was broadcasting to the nation and world that HE THOUGHT Jesus was supporting religious pluralism!

In Chapter 17, author David K. Clarke provides a brilliant evaluation that exposes how all forms of religious pluralism are not genuinely superior to Christian exclusivism. Though religious pluralism may appear to be more open-minded, the truth is that pluralism is more subtly narrow-minded than exclusivism.

Clarke describes several different forms of pluralism in this chapter.

First, one form of pluralism interprets all religions as true in that they produce valuable results. This view, as I said above, actually means that religions are useful, not true.

Think back on what I previously wrote regarding "Rev." Wright's misinterpretation of one Bible verse. He took one verse out of context in order to make it useful for his own purposes. The additional Bible verses shared above (as well as at the Scripture Knowledge page links) unequivocally prove that Wright is absolutely wrong in his interpretation of that one verse in John 10:16.

Clarke goes on to state that he once debated a religious pluralist who stated, "most major religions are good because they produce emotionally mature, socially adapted citizens (which any society needs). So the various faiths - Islam, Christianity and Buddhism - are valuable because they develop good people."

Clarke:

I said in return that traditional Christianity doesn't merely produce good citizens in this world, although empirical evidence shows it does do this. The real point of Christian faith is to activate a spiritual relationship with God, beginning in this world and continuing in the next. In response, my friend said there is no afterlife. His comment entails that the Christianity I embrace is not true.

Notice what happened: my friend began by offering the attractive thesis that all religions are true. But truth, it turned out, doesn't mean literally true but merely useful. When I asked him whether my faith - a faith that billions of Christians have followed for centuries - is deeply true, he said it isn't. Now he could be right. Maybe billions of Christians are wrong. I can accept that. What I can't accept, because it seems deeply confused, is this combination of claims: my faith is literally false, my faith is useful to society, and he's open-minded because he thinks all the world's religions are true. I'd rather he admit he thinks my faith, as I hold it, is just plain false. But here's the rub: that honest admission would involve abandoning pluralism.

Clarke describes the second form of pluralism as being one that accepts the truth of all religions, but only after they are properly interpreted. He gives the example of the "husk and kernel" analogy; claiming that the husk on the outside (each religion's doctrinal teachings) differs among faiths, but the kernel inside (the deeper meaning) is identical. Thus, the philosophy maintains that at a deeper level, all religions agree and are true.

Clarke reveals the fact that the pluralist "edits" each faith in order to get it in agreement with his own personal beliefs. Therefore, the "deeper-meaning-of-all-religion" is what he believed all along, while what he doesn't accept ranks as the "leftover husk."

What does all of this mean? Simply this: the pluralist does not take the Christian faith seriously. He says he agrees with the religion, but in reality, he only accepts an edited version of the Christian faith so that it ultimately ends up looking just like his faith!

Readers, you are already seeing the problem with such a view! But it gets even worse!

Clarke:

Then, on the grounds that his faith and his edited version of my faith look the same, he said all religions are identical. And he took credit for being open-minded. I, apparently, am narrow-minded. I felt as though I've been colonized by an imperialist power. He rejected my faith as I hold it. Then he reinterpreted it so it says what he believes and claimed we're on the same page. We're not on the same page. We hold different religions. And we should honestly acknowledge that. Again this would involve denying pluralism.

The third form of pluralism says that God is completely infinite and therefore unknowable. The author states that this deftly defended stance could, quite literally, fill a book! Clarke shares four brief points:

1. Many real religions do assert that certain concepts do properly apply to God. (Many say "love" properly applies to God but "terrorist" doesn't.)

This shows that not all religions are true and many are literally false. In fact some are downright dangerous (e.g. radical Islam).

2. If no concepts apply, then how can we know that the object of religious experience is good and not evil? How do we know we're encountering God and not a demon?

This is most obvious when cults are exposed. The recent exposure of the polygamy compound group whose men claimed a "spiritual" marriage to many women - including having sex with, and impregnating young girls whose ages are below the state law of consent - is an example of evil masquerading as a religion.

3. Pluralists often break their own rule regarding applying concepts to God. Just speaking about Ultimate Reality (as these pluralists say) applies the concepts ultimate and real to God. This seems inconsistent.

An example of such inconsistency being exposed was during a debate between Christian Apologist Greg Koukl and New Age guru, Deepak Chopra.

My previous reaction to that debate:

This broadcast was absolutely fabulous! Greg Koukl pointed out the fact that people can have differing beliefs regarding faith, but that it is logically impossible for them all to be true at the same time. His trust in Jesus Christ and God's Word stood in direct contrast to Deepak Chopra who admitted "embracing his uncertainty." Koukl's view demonstrates a steadfast and true faith where Chopra's view can only lead to theological oblivion.

4. Finally, why worship a God when we can't apply concepts like goodness, interest in us, or ability to overcome evil to that God? Isn't it morally repulsive to worship something as "ultimate and good" when we have no way to know whether that thing really is ultimate and good?

The logical inconsistency of religious pluralism is very obvious. If "Rev." Wright was ever in a debate with a learned Christian Apologist like Greg Koukl, the errors that he made during the National Press Club interview would be exposed for what they are - lies!

Clarke concludes:

I've focused on our topic by emphasizing the truth question. But pluralists want to focus on the salvation question. By ignoring the truth question, they can push aside pesky differences in truth claims. They can focus on the spiritual quest. But what's that? It's getting in touch with God. But what is God like? Is it personal (Islam) or impersonal (Buddhism)? It's overcome with human predicament. But what is that? Is it ignorance (Hinduism) or moral failure (Judaism)? It's pursuing spiritual life. And what is that? Is it a love relationship (Christianity) or a metaphysical absorption (Hinduism)? Is it finding our truest selves (Christianity) or extinguishing our truest selves (Buddhism)? These truth questions are unavoidable.

Saying that all religions help us achieve the spiritual quest is too vague. What is the truth about that spiritual quest? What is the true Summum Bonum - the Greatest Good? Religious analyses contradict. But getting the analysis right is important, for every practice depends on the truth of analysis. Should I take antacid or chemotherapy for my stomach pain? That depends on a truth question: Do I have heartburn or stomach cancer? Should I become a good citizen for today's society, as my pluralist friend encourages, or should I also prepare for the afterlife? That depends on a truth question. The truth question is unavoidable.

Those who try to focus only on the salvation question in fact assume background answers to the truth questions. (And often, these unstated assumptions deny traditional Christianity.) It's unreasonable to say that all the religions are true paths to the spiritual quest, meaning that every religion is a true path to whatever that religion defines as the spiritual quest. There's just too much variation on the truth question. Saying that all religions have it right, even though they're all literally false, creates rational tension. I submit that people who claim every religion is true paint themselves into a corner. In the end they will tend to believe their own religion is deeply true, and that other faiths are true to the degree they agree with theirs. And that, of course, is not pluralism.

Book Quotes Source: To Everyone An Answer: A Case for the Christian Worldview
Intervarsity Press, 2004 by Francis J. Beckwith, William Lane Craig, and J.P. Moreland. pp. 301-303

HT: NY Times
Faultline U.S.A.
Blue Letter Bible
Book: To Everyone an Answer

Some Thoughts and a Linkfest!

I have been doing a LOT of thinking and reading ever since Mitt Romney dropped his bombshell of an exit from the Republican presidential nomination race at the CPAC convention yesterday.

The moment that Fox News announced that one of Romney's campaign managers confirmed that he would announce his "suspension" (a.k.a QUITTING!!) during his speech to a crowd of cheering conservative Republicans at CPAC, I have to admit that my heart sank. I didn't even vote for the guy! But knowing that Romney saw the writing on the wall, and it said "you don't have a chance against McCain," just saddened my heart. There is something to be said about a person who fights on, despite overwhelming opposition and the creeping realization that the chances for success are slim to none. However, I do admire Romney for two things. First, his motives for dropping out of the race were not selfish. He showed that he loves America more than he hates losing. Second, the fact that he made his announcement after that terrific speech - which was chock full of conservative and moral values talking points - forced a liberal cable news station like CNN to broadcast it to it's audience! Brilliant! They probably hated it, too! Ha!!

When Laura Ingraham came up to the podium, I didn't know whether or not she knew of Romney's intention to announce his withdrawal from the race. Later, I did find out that she was given the word about 10 minutes before she introduced him. How disheartening is that?? I'm sure that she must have been filled with emotions...disappointment, sadness, and the realization that McCain would probably end up being the nominee.

Not so fast!

There is still one other man left standing! His name is Mike Huckabee.

Now, I know that many of my fellow Christian friends don't endorse him. I also know that many of my fellow conservative friends either don't endorse him, or they don't want to endorse him! That's O.K. It's nothing new. People will disagree about politics. The fact that we don't disagree about Jesus Christ or conservative principles still unites us.

Is John McCain's selection as the GOP presidential candidate for 2008 inevitable? It might be. Go ahead and groan. I have been. My friend Matt W. over at Thoughts, Commentary, and other various ramblings states many concerns about McCain.

David Limbaugh over at Newsmax has several articles about the liberalism of John McCain.

However, I really think that there is still a spark of hope. McCain has not yet won the nomination. Mike Huckabee is still committed to continuing on in the race.

My friend Holly over at On the wRite Side shared a Digg post that brought me over to The Conservative Voice article that states, "Why Huckabee Can Win, Like Lincoln Did."

Chuck Campbell wrote:

"Observation likely made prior to Romneys exit from the field but interesting nonetheless. With a little faith and hope anything is possible."

A commenter named these3remain over at Digg had this to say:

This is a God-size task because right now, the numbers are stacked against Huckabee. He only has 192 delegates; to win the nomination , he needs somewhere around 1191. This means he needs 83.3% of the remaining primary delegates while Juan McAmnesty has somewhere in the neighborhood of 703 delegates and therefore only needs to win 40% of the remaining primaries' delegates. God does specialize in the impossible. If this should happen, all the glory should definitely go to Him.

Yep. The Huckabee challenge is indeed one that might just need a miracle!

I like the analogy that Mike shared during his speech after Super Tuesday (paraphrased here):

'It only took one of David's smooth stones, aimed correctly, to defeat the giant - despite Goliath's suit of armor!'

I'm glad that Huckabee is still in it, even though the media naysayers don't think he has a chance. It might be good to see some debates between him and McCain.

This election is serious business. However, we often have the need for comic relief. Where do I go for this? Doug Powers' blog!

Take a look at this posted video over at The Powers That Be - Obama-mania: Is Being a Great Ora-Tater an Accomplishment?

Doug writes:

Monday night, Sean Hannity asked a question of a focus group consisting of over a dozen people who described themselves as Obama supporters.

Q: "Can you name any one specific accomplishment of Barack Obama?"

A: "……. uh……. ummm…… he's a great ora-tater…."

I'll do much better than anybody in that pro-Obama focus group by naming one political accomplishment of Barack Obama: He's convinced a bunch of vacuous boneheads to vote for him — and that's really the only accomplishment any politician has to have on his or her resume, isn't it?

Go look at the video! It would make a great weapon in a GOP campaign commercial!

Commenter "Earl" over there had the best follow-up line:

If hillary has her way the great ora-tater will become the great mashed-tater.

Don't miss Doug's latest post. Obama might need to step to some extra security. The wrath of the Clintons has only just begun!

Well, that was fun. Now, back down to the serious stuff.

I want to share several article links. However, I have been debating in what order I should present them to you.

Perhaps I should present them in the order that I had read them.

1. Over at Laiglesforum, Donald Hank presents the case that the emergent church Christian-left pastors have taken the purpose-driven left turn through embracing the Democrats and their liberal ideals.

Donald writes:

According to the Family Research Council, a new Barna poll shows that the “born again,” whatever that might mean this week, now overwhelmingly support Hillary (20% of the “born again” vote) and Obama (18%).

How is it possible that seemingly devout Christians could support the party that stands like a phalanx behind partial birth abortion and redefining marriage into oblivion and opposes biblical free market principles?

Look no further than “America’s Pastor” and the Saddleback Church, where Obama and Hillary were guests last year. Rick Warren, while claiming to be acting in a Christian, conciliatory manner, treating these leftwing politicians as though they were ideological equals (perhaps they are), was in fact spreading the message that it’s ok for evangelicals to vote for pro-abortion politicians who spurn the free market, because they are decent folks like him, concerned with the same issues, like AIDS, poverty, and peace. Thus his message is in line with the rest of the “religious left,” which, in terms of social issues, can be summed up:

Abortion, marriage and the like social issues pale against the problems of poverty, the environment and world peace. The Democrat message of ending poverty and disease and seeking world peace is a Christian one. It is un-Christian to oppose abortion and gay marriage because this sullies non-Christian sensibilities.

These hopelessly naive people have never learned the lessons of the War on Poverty or the lessons on appeasement taught by the clueless Neville Chamberlain. Sheep-like, their followers fall into line.

I have mentioned in the past that claiming to be "born-again" does not necessarily mean that one genuinely has been born again through Jesus Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit. Not to get too far off topic, but Jesus warned us, in the parable of the wheat and the tares, that genuine believers would grow in the churches alongside false converts.

Mat 13:24 ¶ Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:


Mat 13:25 But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.


Mat 13:26 But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.


Mat 13:27 So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?


Mat 13:28 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?


Mat 13:29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.


Mat 13:30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

It is important to remember that Jesus was talking about those who perceived themselves to be believers.

Back to Donald's article.

When all the celebrating is over, the purpose-driven pastor [refers to Rick Warren] and prosperity-driven pastor,[refers to Joel Osteen] respectively, and their ilk have succeeded in blinding people to the truth, of which older, biblically minded religious leaders once convinced the majority of their flock, namely, that the platforms of the Democrat party are inconsistent with the message of Christ, who did not support killing the unborn, command taxpayers to care for the poor or order nations to make peace with implacable enemies bent on destroying them. In fact He said “you will always have the poor with you,” and that he had come to “bring not peace but a sword.” Unlike Confucius, for example, He was indifferent to the workings of government. He healed the sick and fed the multitude only to show who He was. Thus when some of that multitude followed Him across the sea and asked Him to “show us a sign,” He understood they didn’t really want or need a sign, because He had already fed them miraculously. They hinted that the “sign” should be in the form of handouts, manna from heaven. They wanted socialism, a perfect Kingdom of God free of hunger, i.e., essentially the Democrat platform.

Donald has brilliantly explained how, and why, the emergent church movement exists. The bolded part demonstrates only just a few points of error where the emergent church movement has gone astray.

There is nothing wrong with desiring to help the sick and feed the hungry. As Christians, we are to do what we can to help our neighbors in need. However, the connection Don has made towards socialism cannot be ignored.

Socialism is highly linked to postmodernism. One of postmodernism's highest goals is "tolerance," (which, btw, has a hijacked meaning of complete acceptance with no need to repent of immoral behaviors) being used as an overriding virtue. The belief that everybody's belief system is right for them is more acceptable than any idea of judgment. Therefore, people have come up with the idea that they should be free to pick and choose what to believe about Jesus. This has led people to not only make their own religion, but because they view Jesus as being "big on love," they eliminate the concept of judgment and hell and created their own kind of Jesus...in their own image. People, this is idolatry! Plain and simple.

They create their own "godliness." They believe that no one's opinion[s] should trump anyone elses. The established biblical Christian tenet of absolute truth is out the window.

The "new" and "rethink" Christianity is a do-it-yourself spirituality. This is known as "syncretism," which is the blending of elements from various faiths into a new form of spirituality. Orthodoxy is thrown out the window. Syncretists adopt doctrines that seem appropriate to them and leave behind others that they regard as offensive or outdated. You could label it the eclectic approach towards an unrecognizable form of "Christianity," which, is a far cry from the truth. The historical Jesus has now become a designer Jesus.

Why is biblical Christianity so despised by many today? Precisely because Jesus claimed (and is) the truth. People understand that truth is a belief, story, ideal, or statement that matches up with reality or corresponds to the way things really are. Yet, for some, they want to take a pragmatic viewpoint and believe that whatever works for them is true. But relativism always falls apart, in the end. Relativism cannot be lived out consistently. There is a mismatch between its theory and practice.

For Biblical Christians, the truth is revealed in God's Word and through the Person of Truth, Jesus Christ. It is true even if people don't acknowledge it. Absolute Truth is true even if no one knows it, admits it, agrees with it, follows it, or even fully grasps it.

New Testament scholar Andreas J. Kostenberger wrote:

The very notion of truth has largely become a casualty of postmodern thought and discourse. Truth is no longer "the" truth, in Jesus' terms who claimed to be "the truth." Rather it is conceived of as "your" truth or "my" truth - that is, different yet equally legitimate ways of perceiving reality. Hence truth is simply one's preferred, culturally conditioned, socially constructed version of reality.

[Source: Andreas Kostenberger, gen. ed., Whatever Happened to Truth? (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2005), 9.]

Notice that Kostenberger uses the term socially in his quote regarding "socially constructed version of reality." Right there, we have the mindset and entryway right into the path of socialism. And, what does socialism here in America hold as one of its highest ideals? Liberalism.


Now, keeping all of this in mind, please read this excellent article called A Liberal Christianity Intensifies Radical Islam Threat.


Notice how the article begins:

The Western church’s growing tendency to blur theological differences and not uphold the absolute truth is contributing to the threat of radical Islam to the Western world, said a highly respected expert on Islam.


Patrick Sookhdeo, the director of the Institute for the Study of Islam and Christianity, said churches are moving away from central doctrines that teach about separation and instead conforming to secular society’s ideology of inclusion.

“When faced with the uniqueness of Christ we become inclusive. He loves everybody so we talk about love, and hell and damnation goes out the window,” said Sookhdeo. “It becomes too embarrassing. So our church has conformed itself according to society.”

What does this tell us? It tells us that the various tenets, values, and anti-morality socialistic-bent liberalism invading the evangelical churches is attempting to capture the public's attention through a portrait of Jesus that is only nice and loving, while ignoring the fact that He will one day return as the Holy and Righteous Judge of the universe! This new "designer" Jesus does not have any resemblance to the biblical, historical Jesus that has been traditionally embraced by the church over the past 2,000 years.

Sookhdeo isn't afraid to preach the truth:

Christians are afraid to admit that only believers in Jesus Christ will be saved and others – Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists – are lost, because that would be arrogance in a society dominated by secular humanist ideology, Sookhdeo argued.

“If the U.S. church goes the way of Europe and embraces liberalism in its theology then it will embrace liberalism in its life,” said the British Anglican canon. “And if it embraces liberalism in its life then the church will die and not only will the church die, but society around it will also die.”

“What worries me is this,” he added. “I say this to churches in Britain. I can’t say it of the U.S. Is the Lord taking His candlestick from Britain and from Europe? Is the Lord saying: ‘I’m going to vomit you out of my mouth, because your sickness is beyond cure? You are so taken with other gods, you have prostituted yourself enough. I’m finished with you.’ It is a question and a question we must address, not just in Europe but here also.”

Islam is one of these gods which Christians are embracing, said Sookhdeo.

I know. You must be thinking that the last sentence above cannot possibly be true. Think again.

Archbishop of Canterbury seeks adoption of Islamic law
'It is not as if we are bringing in an alien and rival system'


Commenter John 14-6 sums it up:

Patrick Sookhdeo is absolutely, 100% correct. Christian liberalism bears a huge responsibility for the problems we are facing with Islam. If the church does not stand up strong and present the faith boldly, the absolute truth of Jesus Christ as being the only way, the only truth and the only life, then Islam will run rampant and roughshod across Christendom. It's already happening because of what Christian liberalism has done to the church (what's left of the church) in places like Germany, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Denmark, and most certainly what is happening in England. Today, the Archbishop of Canterbury said England should be "resigned" to accepting partial Sharia Law. I rest my case.

I hope that these thoughts and links have made you aware of the dire consequences that would ensue if either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama become our next president. With their lack of resolve on the War on Terrorism, our nation could be in grave danger. Their socialistic, liberal, "leave Al Qaeda, the Iranian insurgents, the Taliban and Hamas alone and there will be peace" attitudes indicate to me that they could end up being just like that Archbishop - be "resigned" to accepting partial Sharia Law. After all, it would be the inclusive, tolerant, and morally relativistic thing to do...in their spiritually blinded eyes...wouldn't it?

Hat Tips:

Christian Business Daily
World Net Daily
The Powers that Be
LaiglesForum
On the wRite Side
Thoughts, Commentary, and Other Various Ramblings
Newsmax - David Limbaugh
The Conservative Voice
CNN Politics
Digg
The Christian Post

*******
Update @ 4:56 p.m. PT -

GCMWatch has an excellent post up which presents and explains the term "diaprax." Author and Pastor, D.L. Foster, demonstrates how that term (diaprax) is related to both the emergent church movement heresy and the gay "christian" movement heresy. His research on these issues expose the diehard efforts of such groups - through the use of fraudulent and deceitful purposes - to attack and skew the truth of God's Word in their not-so-secret attempts to undermine the true Gospel of Jesus Christ.

*******
Second Update @ 5;45 p.m. PT -


At least someone involved with the clergy over in the U.K. finally had the brains to speak out against the Canterbury Fairytale Archbishop!

'Resign,' clergy tell Archbishop of Canterbury
Call for Williams to quit part of backlash over sharia comments

What's Your Theological Worldview?

Found this interesting quiz via gcmwatch and couldn't resist posting it here at Talk Wisdom.

So...how many brave souls do we have out there who are willing to take the quiz and post their results in the comment section?

Hmmm?

Christine

P.S. I still don't know who "Karl Barth" is. It's one of the questions in the quiz. Can anyone enlighten me?

HT: gcmwatch