Encouraging Sin In Vancouver

Sometimes there are no words.

Free Crack Pipes To Be Handed Out In Vancouver

Health officials in Vancouver say they will launch a pilot project later this year to distribute clean, unused crack pipes to drug users.

While heroin users can pick up clean needles from needle-exchange programs or the city's controversial safe-injection site, crack pipes are more difficult to come by.

Some crack smokers can afford to buy small glass or Pyrex stems to use as pipes. Others fashion makeshift pipes from bottles, cans or even hollow car antennas. And in many cases, they just simply share, potentially putting themselves at risk of contracting disease.

It's part of the city's harm-reduction strategy that seeks to reduce the transmission of disease while ensuring health-care and social workers are able to interact with hard-to-reach drug addicts.

Currently, the city distributes clean mouth pieces for crack pipes, but not the pipes themselves.

"We want to do it in a way that we can evaluate this, because there's a couple of questions I hope we can answer by doing this," says Dr. Patricia Daly, the medical health officer for Vancouver Coastal Health.

"And not just about demand and numbers, but can we use this as an engagement strategy like we do with our other harm-reduction initiatives. If you can deliver [harm-reduction programs] in a way where you can get people into other services, that's very beneficial."

Unlike needle-exchange programs for injection drugs, programs to ensure users who smoke crack are using the drug safely are uneven across the country and, in some cases, non-existent. That's despite a growing body of evidence that smoking crack cocaine increases the risk of diseases such as HIV and hepatitis.

In a small handful of cities, including Calgary and Winnipeg, local health authorities pass out crack pipes. Others prefer to only hand out mouth pieces, which users can place on their own pipes to avoid exposing themselves to others' saliva and blood.

And in others still, the job of distributing either mouth pieces or pipes is left to local community groups.

Unbelievable, isn't it?

There's actually so much more from that article, but I couldn't stomach it. For instance, this little gem, which would be hilarious if it weren't so tragic...

"There is a huge stigma against people who use crack, more intense than the stigma for those who use heroin."

Uh, yeah, ya think? This is news? Furthermore, this is a 'bad' thing!?! Therein lies the problem with the world today. There is no longer a healthy sense of guilt or shame about...anything. This is the result of a culture that for decades has preached the Gospel of Moral Relativism. Clear evidence that sin blinds people to the truth.

As always, God has the final say on such matters...

Isaiah 5:20 (KJV) Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

Proverbs 16:25 (KJV) There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

Luke 9:1-2 (KJV) Then he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases. And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick.

Matthew 14:14 (KJV) And Jesus went forth, and saw a great multitude, and was moved with compassion toward them, and he healed their sick.

Mark 3:10 (KJV) For he had healed many; insomuch that they pressed upon him for to touch him, as many as had plagues.

2 Timothy 3:1-9 (KJV) This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith. But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was.

Like I said, this sort of thing is sad and unreal.

Look, people should desire Jesus Christ for who He is and for what He represents. You shouldn't desire and seek Christ because He can help you with X,Y,Z in your life. Yet, the reality is that He can and will help you with X, Y, Z in your life, but only as a byproduct of repentance and a saving faith. Jesus represents hope to the hopeless, but drug addicts in Vancouver will never hear that message.

But let's take Christ out of it for a moment. Even then, a policy like this looks absurd and unloving. Rather than doing all that they can to help people get and stay clean, these communities around the world have resigned themselves to the notion that a majority of drug addicts are hopeless lost causes, and so if there's no way to really help a person get the treatment they need, then you're better off just throwing up your arms and letting them wallow in their struggles (wallow in their sins) as comfortably as you can because that's real compassion.

Gimme a break! Lord, come quickly!

Share|

Read more »

Posted in: Apostasy,How Close Are We?,Moral Decline,Political Signs,Spiritual Deception

The 'Foolish/Worthless Shepherd'

A brief follow-up to the previous post since something from A.W. Pink's proof texts regarding what God's Word tells us about the coming Antichrist stood out to me for some reason.

The passage comes from Zechariah 11, or a chapter that speaks to us about judgment coming upon God’s flock. Specifically, I want us to prayerfully consider only 3 verses in particular...

Zechariah 11:15-17 (KJV) And the LORD said to me, "Next, take for yourself the implements of a foolish shepherd. For indeed I will raise up a shepherd in the land who will not care for those who are cut off, nor seek the young, nor heal those that are broken, nor feed those that still stand. But he will eat the flesh of the fat and tear their hooves in pieces.

Woe to the worthless shepherd,
Who leaves the flock!
A sword shall be against his arm
And against his right eye;
His arm shall completely wither,
And his right eye shall be totally blinded."

In this chapter, Zechariah is acting out a prophecy of judgment. To be clear, Zechariah is 'play-acting' this prophecy, employing himself as a shepherd over a flock.

It's interesting within the context of this day and age (with the advancement of 'Chrislam' and the numerous False Teachers like Rick Warren, Joel Osteen, Rob Bell, etc.) that verses 15-16 clearly tell us that God will allow foolish shepherds to come to His people. Why? Please keep reading.

Here in verses 15-16 we find Zechariah play-acting as a foolish shepherd who does not care for the sheep the way that a genuine shepherd should...

-- The foolish shepherd will not care for those who are cut off, but a wise and godly shepherd will seek the lost

-- The foolish shepherd will not seek the young, but a wise and godly shepherd knows that the young need to come to the LORD as much as older people do

-- The foolish shepherd will not heal those that are broken, but a wise and godly shepherd looks for broken hearts and lives and mends them with God’s love and word

-- The foolish shepherd will not feed those that still stand, but a wise and godly shepherd will faithfully feed the sheep

-- The foolish shepherd will eat the flesh of the fat and tear their hooves in pieces, but a wise and godly shepherd will lay down his life for the sheep (John 10:11)

[SOURCE]

This foolish/worthless shepherd is allowed (and appointed) by God as judgment because His people forsook the True Shepherd. Of course, this was fulfilled in Israel’s rejection of Jesus Christ. They rejected the Good Shepherd (John 10:1-18), but will receive another shepherd (John 5:43).

In response to this portion of the holy text, David Guzik noted what seems to be the absolute perfect exclamation point to yesterday's post on Poligion...

"We often assume all that people need is the right leader. Here we see that even the ultimate leader may be rejected and a worthless leader chosen. Democracy’s value is that it respects man’s fallen nature and spreads out power -- yet the majority may be very, very wrong and prefer a foolish shepherd instead of the Good Shepherd."

Amen! For proof that such a statement is grounded in God's Word, just go back to the Bible. The prediction that the foolish/worthless shepherd would be embraced by Israel was partially fulfilled in their choice of Barabbas (Matthew 27:20-22), but it will be ultimately fulfilled in their embrace of the coming Antichrist and their covenant with him (Daniel 9:27).

Back to these verses from Zechariah 11. With the removal of the True Shepherd, the drama (this play-acting) called for the prophet Zechariah to play a foolish/worthless shepherd, right? Well, here he was depicting the prophesied Antichrist of Daniel's 70th Week (2 Thessalonians 2:3; John 5:43; Daniel 9:27). So, Zechariah's prophecy jumped from the 1st Century to the last days.

Now, we also read that the foolish/worthless shepherd had a broken staff or club that he used to beat stubborn sheep into submission. I think we'd all agree that this is behavior that is clearly inappropriate and uncalled for from a shepherd who tenderly and thoughtfully cares for his flock. This kind of despicable treatment is exactly what the Antichrist will do (Daniel 9:27; Matthew 24:15-22).

Again, God allows for this foolish/worthless shepherd to arise, to destroy the sheep, because they rejected the Good Shepherd. But the story doesn't end there.

In the final analysis, however, the critical point to keep in mind here is this: Though God appointed the foolish/worthless shepherd in light of Israel’s rejection of the Good Shepherd, it does not mean that God approves of the foolish/worthless shepherd. God will judge that foolish/worthless shepherd who injured His flock.

And so will be the ultimate fate of the coming Antichrist. It's interesting to note that verse 17 (where it mentions "his arm" and "right eye") tells us plainly that the Antichrist's strength ("arm") and his intelligence ("eye") will be taken away from him (Daniel 7:9-14, 24-27; Daniel 8:23-25; Revelation 19:20; Revelation 20:10).

As always, we find a supernatural thread of coherency and consistency running throughout the holy Scriptures from beginning to end. Praise the Lord!

Keep looking up!

Share|

Read more »

Posted in: Antichrist,Apostasy,Bible Study,Book Of Daniel,False Christs,Four Horsemen,How Close Are We?,Prophecy Basics,Revelatory Revival,Seven Seals,Sola Scriptura,Spiritual Growth,White Horse

Did Pink See The Pope? Nope.

I realize it's been 8 weeks already since we first kicked off our special 'Prophecy From The Past's Perspective', but we've only looked at what two men of God had to say about Bible prophecy and the end times (J.C. Ryle and Arthur W. Pink).

I don't want you to think I've given up on that important series. I had every intention of including a few more notable Preachers, and, God willing, I'll get to see things through to the end and do just that, but I've obviously felt led to do some other things for Him in the meantime. Today is no exception.

As a friendly reminder, in the nearly 3 years that this blog has been in existence we have rarely ventured to produce posts on the subject of the coming Antichrist because we hesitate to play 'Pin-The-Tail-On-The-Antichrist' in these parts.

So, that being said, I hope you will afford me the leeway to touch upon this controversial subject once more, in the hopes that we might learn something else from God's Word about this nefarious being who is set to take his place upon the world stage, any day now, it seems.

To put it another way, since I don't generally devote a lot of time to this topic, I hope you will grant me the license to take some of your valuable time to prayerfully consider the content of this piece.

Following that in-depth study about Arthur W. Pink's work on the future Antichrist (mainly the conclusion he arrives at that the coming "Son of Perdition" mentioned in both John 17:12 and 2 Thessalonians 2:3 is merely one description from the Word that proves that the Antichrist will be a resurrected Judas Iscariot), it was suggested to me that perhaps a resurrected Pope might fit the bill. And you thought the Judas claim was 'out there', huh?

Now, I don't want to give the impression that I'm merely giving credence to each and every instance of vain speculation that comes along, or that I'm somehow going to give equal time and an open forum to such things here at LUF. I've done my share of that in the past and, to be blunt, I feel badly about it. In hindsight, I wish I would've spent more time on learning and teaching what the Scriptures have to say than producing some of the material I put out there. I want to mature in my faith and grow in the grace of Christ, learning His doctrines as best as I can so that I can maybe be used by Him to help others learn.

So, just writing about any old thing here wouldn't be prudent of me, or any Christian for that matter. Yet, I have seen this idea show up in several places recently and that's why I want to address here today. In fact, I actually want to refute it because I think it's the kind of thing that hurts what I believe to be the compelling Biblical argument that Pink made about the Judas Iscariot/Antichrist link we've already looked at extensively together.

Specifically, there's this idea going around that perhaps a resurrected Pope John Paul II could somehow tie in to all of this. Of course, this is nothing new because LUF devoted an entire post to the possibility (especially given all the occult, satanic symbolism associated with Pope John Paul II's death and burial) in a post written way back in 2009 that cited the same concept, but that was long before I even knew about Pink's assertions.

Not that that matters though. I mean, I'm only bringing it up again today because it's out there for a topic of discussion, and because it gives me the opportunity to share some more of A.W. Pink's writings about end times Bible prophecy.

Please keep in mind that it (the idea of a resurrected Pope) was merely pure speculation then on my part, it remains pure speculation even to this day, and I don't believe it's in any way connected (in the sense that it's some sort of 'fulfillment' or something) to any part of this Pink discussion despite the peculiar similarities.

Still, this entire modern theory about the coming Antichrist being a resurrected Pope John Paul II just got a little more intriguing after one discovery forced it back onto my spiritual radar, which is another reason why I want to quickly mention it.

While conducting some research in follow-up to that last Arthur Pink piece, there was something I just happened to trip over in one of the segments from Father Malachi Martin's classic 1998 interview with Art Bell on Coast To Coast AM. Remember that program?

Listen to this brief sound byte from that interview and see if you catch it...



Did you catch it?

For starters, as always, we find that the Catholic church is willing to put more stock in the supposed 'secrets' (a.k.a. 'predictions') from some demonic apparition claiming to be the 'Blessed Virgin Mary' than in the end times prophecies already recorded and preserved for us in the Holy Bible, but that's a story for another day.

In addition, and the part that really caught my ear, is that it's even more curious to me that Pope John Paul II, upon hearing news about the contents and details regarding the so-called 'Third Secret of Fatima' (mainly the part about how a future Pope would be under the control of Satan), is rumored to have not only suspected that he was the Pope in question, but it was such a powerful response by him that we're told he fainted too because he agreed, and thought it might actually be him!

That certainly casts a new light on the recent film The Rite starring Anthony Hopkins that another reader commented on that -- surprise, surprise -- is a story about a Catholic Priest becoming possessed by the spirit of none other than Judas Iscariot!

The Rite Trailer
[WARNING: Exercise caution...]



Does any of this strike you as being quite odd? Just in the 'observational' sense within the context of this discussion mind you.

That being said, please note that I'm not attempting to base this entire discussion on the 'proof that it must be true' all because the subject matter appears in some recent example of pop culture. That would be silly and un-Biblical. However, I do believe that what Satan attempts to condition us to believe through the use of the fallen world system is a sign of sorts in and of itself.

Let's just focus our attention on Father Martin's account of Pope John Paul II for a moment and assume it's legit. It certainly seems to be an inappropriate response for any Christian who's not supposed to be ruled by a spirit of fear, and especially not the kind of response appropriate from one of the world's most revered holy men, right? I mean, even if we also assume that Pope John Paul II came to the same conclusions that A.W. Pink did, shouldn't we expect a different response rooted in faith?

So, simply for the purposes of this discussion today, does any of that lend any credence to Pink's position as well as to this theory about Pope John Paul II? You might be inclined to think so, but is it even Biblical? That's ALWAYS the key. Given what we learned in that last Antichrist study (which I still firmly believe has a lot of Scriptural truth to it; more than mere speculation), does that leave any room for this 'resurrected Pope John Paul II' business? Well, what do the holy Scriptures tell us? Sola Scriptura.

Yes, it may take time to painstakingly study His Word to find such answers, and it may take time to apply Acts 17:11 to the teachings from godly men who have gone before us, and who have written about all of this already, but isn't it worth it? You bet it is!

Even if you're the type of Christian who believes that any discussion about the coming Antichrist is a futile waste of time, then what about your feelings about the process itself? Shouldn't we at least examine His Word carefully to see what it says about this matter so we can try to settle it in our hearts and mind once and for all? Sure, the Holy Spirit might not reveal everything to us, and we already know there is no "private interpretation" (2 Peter 1:20), but shouldn't we still take any opportunity to perform sound exegesis? Isn't that what we're called to do in 2 Timothy 2:15?

Personally, I see theses two threads (Pink's conclusion that the Antichrist will be a resurrected Judas Iscariot and the growing belief that the Antichrist will be a resurrected Pope John Paul II) as two separate and distinct notions. Furthermore, I still believe that one is firmly rooted in the veracity of the Scriptures (the position that the Antichrist will be a resurrected Judas Iscariot) while the other is simply the popular opinion of our day that's gaining traction in many Christian prophecy camps lately (the position that a past/future Pope will be the Antichrist).

To support my stance on this issue, I'll refer to none other than A.W. Pink who also had something to say about this often acknowledged Antichrist/Pope connection that existed even in his day.

Please be sure to prayerfully consider the following with your Bible wide open so that you can actually prove to yourself the truthfulness of each statement using the chapter and verse that Pink cites for us.

CHAPTER TWO: THE PAPACY NOT THE ANTICHRIST

Nevertheless, by common consent the Reformers applied the prophecies which treat of the character, career, and doom of the Antichrist, to Popery, and regarded those of his titles which referred to him as "that Man of Sin, the Son of Perdition", the "King of Babylon" and "the Beast", as only so many names for the head of the Roman hierarchy. But this view, which was upheld by most of the Puritans too, must be brought to the test of the one infallible standard of Truth which our gracious God has placed in our hands. We must search the Scriptures to see whether these things be so or not.

Now we shall hold no brief for the pope, nor have we anything good to say of that pernicious system of which he is the head. On the contrary, we have no hesitation in denouncing as rank blasphemy the blatant assumption of the pope as being the infallible vicar of Christ. Nor do we hesitate to declare that the Papacy has been marked, all through its long history, by impious arrogance, awful idolatry, and unspeakable cruelty. But, nevertheless, there are many scriptures which prevent us from believing that the Papacy and the Antichrist are identical. The Son of Perdition will eclipse any monstrosities that have sprung from the waves of the Tiber. The Bible plainly teaches us to look for a more terrible personage than any Hildebrand or Leo.

Undoubtedly there are many points of analogy between Antichrist and the popes, and without doubt the Papal system has foreshadowed to a remarkable degree the character and career of the coming Man of Sin. Some of the parallelisms between them were pointed out by us in the previous chapter, and to these many more might be added. Not only is it evident that Roman Catholicism is a most striking type and harbinger of that one yet to come, but the cause of truth requires us to affirm that the Papacy is an antichrist, doubtless, the most devilish of them all. Yet, we say again, that Romanism is not the Antichrist. As it is likely that many of our readers have been educated in the belief that the pope and the Antichrist are identical, we shall proceed to produce some of the numerous proofs which go to show that such is not the case. That the Papacy cannot possibly be the Antichrist appears from the following considerations:

1. The term "Antichrist" whether employed in the singular or the plural, denotes a person or persons, and never a system. We may speak correctly of an anti-Christ-ian system, just as we may refer to a Christian organization; but it is just as inadmissible and erroneous to refer to any system or organization as "the Antichrist" or "an antichrist", as it would be to denominate any Christian system or organization "the Christ", or "a Christ". Just as truly as the Christ is the title of a single person the Son of God, so the Antichrist will be a single person, the son of Satan.

2. The Antichrist will be a lineal descendant of Abraham, a Jew. We shall not stop to submit the proof for this, as that will be given in our next chapter; suffice it now to say that none but a full-blooded Jew could ever expect to palm himself off on the Jewish people as their long-expected Messiah. Here is an argument that has never been met by those who believe that the pope is the Man of Sin. So far as we are aware no Israelite has ever occupied the Papal See - certainly none has done so since the seventh century.

3. In line with the last argument, we read in Zech. 11:16,17, "For, lo, I will raise up a Shepherd in the land which shall not visit those that be cut off, neither shall seek the young ones, nor heal that that is broken, nor feed that that standeth still: but he shall eat the flesh of the fat, and tear their claws in pieces. Woe to the Idol Shepherd that leaveth the flock! The sword (of Divine judgment) shall be upon his arm (his power), and upon his right eye (intelligence): his arm shall be clean dried up, and his right eye shall be utterly darkened". "The land" here is, of course, Palestine, as is ever the case in Scripture with this expression. This could not possibly apply to the line of the Popes.

4. In 2 Thess. 2:4 we learn that the Man of Sin shall sit "in the Temple of God", and St. Peter's at Rome cannot possibly be called that. The "Temple" in which the Antichrist shall sit will be the rebuilt temple of the Jews, and that will be located not in Italy but in Jerusalem. In later chapters it will be shown that he Mosque of Omar shall yet be replaced by a Jewish Temple before our Lord returns to earth.

5. The Antichrist will be received by the Jews. This is clear from the passage which heads the first paragraph of this chapter. "I am come in My Father's name, and ye receive me not; if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive"; but the Jews have never yet owned allegiance to any pope.

6. The Antichrist will make a Covenant with the Jews. In Dan. 9:27 we read, "And he shall confirm the covenant with many for a week". The one referred to here as making this seven-year Covenant is "the Prince that shall come" of the previous verse, namely, the Antichrist, who will be the Head of the ten-kingdomed Empire. The nation with whom the Prince will make this covenant is the people of Daniel, as is clear from the context - see v. 24. But we know of no record upon the scroll of history of any pope having ever made a seven-year Covenant with the Jews!

7. In Dan. 11:45 we read, "And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas, in the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him". The person referred to here is, again, the Antichrist, as will be seen by going back to v. 36 where this section of the chapter begins. There we are told, "The king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvelous things against he God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished; for that that is determined shall be done". This is more than sufficient to identify with certainty the one spoken of in the last verse of Dan. 11. The Antichrist, then, will plant the tabernacles of his palace "between the seas", that is, between the Mediterranean and the Red Sea. By no species of ingenuity can this be made to apply to the pope, for his palace, the Vatican, is located in the capital city of Italy.

8. The Antichrist cannot be revealed until the mystic Body of Christ and the Holy Spirit have been removed from the earth. This is made clear by what we read in 2 Thess. 2. In verse three of that chapter the apostle refers to the revelation of the Man of Sin. In verse four he describes his awful impiety. In verse five he reminds the Thessalonians how that he had taught them these things by word of mouth when he was with them. And then, in verse six he declares "And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time". And again he said, "For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only He who now letteth (hindereth) will let until He be taken out of the way". There are two agencies, then, which are hindering, or preventing the manifestation of the Antichrist, until "his time" shall have come. The former agency is covered by the pronoun "what", the latter by the word "He". The former, we are satisfied, is the mystical Body of Christ; the latter being the Holy Spirit of God. At the Rapture both shall be "taken out of the way", and then shall the Man of Sin be revealed. If, then, the Antichrist cannot appear before the Rapture of the saints and the taking away of the Holy Spirit, then, here is proof positive that the Antichrist has not yet appeared.

9. Closely akin to the last argument is the fact that quite a number of definite scriptures place the appearing of the Antichrist at that season known as the End-Time. Dan. 7 and 8 make it plain that the Antichrist will run his career at the very end of this age (we do not say this "dispensation" for that will end at the Rapture), that is, during the great Tribulation, the time of "Jacob's trouble". Dan. 7:21-23 declares, "I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them; Until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the Most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom". Dan. 8:19 places his course (see 8:23-25) at "the last end of the indignation", i.e. of God's wrath against Israel and the Gentiles. Dan. 9 shows that he will make his seven-years' Covenant with the Jews at the beginning of the last of the seventy "weeks" which is to bring in "the end" of Israel's sins and "finish the transgression" (9: 24). If the time of the Antichrist's manifestation is yet future then it necessarily follows that Rome cannot be the Antichrist.

10. The Antichrist will deny both the Father and the Son: "He is Antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son" (1 John 2:22). This scripture does not speak of virtual, but of actual and formal denial. But Rome has always maintained in her councils and creeds, her symbols of faith and worship, that there are three persons in the Godhead. Numerous and grievous have been her departures from the teaching of Holy Scripture, yet since the time of the Council of Trent (1563 A.D.) every Roman Catholic has had to confess "I believe in God the Father...and in the Lord Jesus Christ....and in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, which proceedeth from the Father and the Son". As a system Romanism is a go-between. The "priest" stands between the sinner and God; the "confessional" between him and the throne of grace; "penance" between him and godly sorrow; the "mass" between him and Christ; and "purgatory" between him and Heaven. The pope acknowledges both the Father and the Son: he confesses himself to be both the servant of God and His worshipper; he blesses the people not in his own name, but in that of the Holy Trinity.

11. The Antichrist is described as the one "who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the Temple of God, showing himself that he is God" (2 Thess. 2:4). This is what the popes have never done. Not even Leo ventured to deify himself or supersede God. The popes have made many false and impious claims for themselves; nevertheless, their decrees have been sent forth as from the "vice-gerent" of God, the "vicar" of Christ - thus acknowledging a Divine power above himself.

12. In Rev. 13:2,4 we read, "And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority...and they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast". By comparing these verses with Rev. 12:9 we learn that the Dragon is none other than Satan himself. Now by almost common consent this first beast of Rev. 13 is the Antichrist. If, then, Romanism be the Antichrist, where, we may ask, shall we turn to find anything answering to what we read of here in Rev. 13:4 - "And they worshipped the dragon, which gave power unto the beast".

13. This same 13th chapter of Revelation informs us that the Antichrist (the first Beast) shall be aided by a second Beast who is denominated "the False Prophet" (Rev. 19:20). The False Prophet, we are told "exerciseth all the power of the First Beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the First Beast" (Rev. 13:12). If the First Beast be the Papacy, then who is the False Prophet who "causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship" her?

14. Again; we are told that this False Prophet shall say to them that dwell on the earth "that they should make an image to the Beast, which had the wound by a sword and did live" (Rev. 13:14). Further, we are told, "And he had power to give life unto the image of the Beast, that the image of the Beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the Beast should be killed" (Rev 13:15). Where do we find anything in Popery which in anywise resembles this?

15. In Dan. 9:27 we are told that the Antichrist "shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease". And again in 8:11 we read, "Yea, he magnified himself even against the Prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away". If Romanism is the Antichrist how can these scriptures be made to square with the oft repeated "Sacrifice of the Mass"?

16. The dominion of the Antichrist shall be world-wide. The coming Man of Sin will assert a supremacy which shall be unchallenged and universal. "And all the world wondered after the Beast" (Rev. 13:3). "And power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations" (13:7). It hardly needs to be pointed out that half of Christendom, to say nothing of Heathendom, is outside the pale of Rome, and is antagonistic to the claims of the Papacy. Again; in 13:17 we read "No man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the Beast, or the number of his name": and when, we ask, has any pope exercised such commercial supremacy that none could buy or sell without his permission?

17. The duration of Antichrist's career, after he comes out in his true character, will be limited to forty-two months. There are no less than six scriptures which, with a variety of expression, affirm this time restriction. In Dan. 7:25 we learn that this one who shall "think to change times and laws", will have these "given into his hand until a time, and times, and the dividing of time": that is, for three years and a half - cf. Rev. 12:14 with 12:6. And again in Rev. 13:5 we are told, "And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months" (Rev. 13:5). Now it is utterly impossible to make this harmonize with the protracted history of Romanism by any honest method of computation.

18. In Rev. 13:7,8 we read, "And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations. And all that dwell upon the face of the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world". Here we are expressly told that the only ones who will not "worship the Beast", i.e. the Antichrist, are they whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life. If then the pope is the Antichrist, all who do not worship him must have their names written in the Lamb's book of life - an absurdity on the face of it, for this would be tantamount to saying that all the infidels, atheists, and unbelievers of the last thousand years who were outside of the pale of Roman Catholicism are saved.

19. In 2 Thess. 2:11,12 we are told, "For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness". The context here shows that "believing a lie" means accepting the claims of the Antichrist. Those who believe his claims will "receive him" (John 5:43), and not only so, they will "worship" him (Rev. 13:8); and 2 Thess. 2:12 declares that all who do this will be "damned". If, then, the pope is the Antichrist, then it necessarily follows that all who have believed his lying claims, that all who have received him as the vicar of Christ, that all who have worshipped him, will be eternally lost. But the writer would not for a moment make any such sweeping assertion. He, together with thousands of others, believes firmly that during the centuries there have been many Roman Catholics who, despite much ignorance and superstition, have been among that number that have exercised faith in the blood of Christ, and that lived and died resting on the finished work of Christ as the alone ground of their acceptance before God, and who because of this shall be forever with the Lord.

20. That the Antichrist and the Papacy are totally distinct is unequivocally established by the teaching of Rev. 17. Here we learn that there shall be ten kings who will reign "with the Beast" (v. 12), and act in concert with him (vv. 13,16). Then we are told "these shall hate the Whore (the papacy), and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire" (v. 16). Instead of the Antichrist and the Papacy being identical, the former shall destroy the latter; whereas, the Antichrist shall be destroyed by Christ Himself, see 2 Thess. 2:8.

Perhaps a word of explanation is called for as to why we have entered into such lengthy details in presenting some of the many proofs that the Papacy is not the Antichrist. Our chief reason for doing so was because we expect that many who will read this paper are among the number who have been brought up in the belief which was commonly taught by the Reformers and which has prevailed generally since their day. For those readers who had already been established on this point, we would ask them to please bear with us for having sought to help those less fortunate. Our next chapter will be one of more general interest, for in it we shall discuss the person of the Antichrist - who he will be, from whence he will spring, and what marks will serve to identify him.

[Source]

That was just an excerpt, but I hope it will suffice for our purposes here.

Now, I'm not suggesting that A.W. Pink is some re-discovered ultimate authority when it comes to end times Bible prophecy, or that we have to agree with each and every point raised in the above excerpt.

However, I do believe it does at least raise enough Scriptural evidence to shatter this common belief that a Pope (resurrected or not) will one day become the prophesied Antichrist. False Prophet maybe, but not the Man of Sin himself.

Did Pink see the Pope as being the future Antichrist? Nope.

And neither does God's Word.

Share|

Read more »

Posted in: A.W. Pink,Antichrist,Bible Study,False Christs,Four Horsemen,Pope And Vatican,Prophecy Basics,Seven Seals,Sola Scriptura,Spiritual Deception,Spiritual Growth

The Problem With Poligion's Politicians

I'm in a political frame of mind today. I'm afraid 'Poligion' has reared its ugly head once more. That's because I came across this article a few weeks ago that further underscores the problem with Poligion.

In short, the problem is that Poligionists prefer Ayn Rand's political ideologies over those expounded in the holy Scriptures and uttered by Jesus Christ.

Check out this audacious article that appeared at 'conservative' Fox News' website...

Does America Need Ayn Rand Or Jesus?

Ayn Rand is everywhere and her political opponents are growing nervous.

Rand of course is a champion of individual rights, including property rights, and an advocate of laissez-faire capitalism. Walk through any Tea Party gathering and you’ll see signs such as “Who is John Galt?,” “Rand was right” and “Read Atlas Shrugged.”

Paul Ryan says of her, accurately in my view, that “Ayn Rand more than anyone else did a fantastic job of explaining the morality of capitalism, the morality of individualism.”

On this shift in the political landscape, Paul Krugman comments in “A Tale of Two Moralities” that gone are the days when policy disputes were about pragmatic differences in accomplishing the same goal. Today we see a difference in moral principle: one side considers the modern welfare state morally superior to capitalism and the other side considers capitalism morally superior to the welfare state.

What Krugman doesn’t say, however, is that to the extent there actually is a side today that thinks capitalism is morally superior to the welfare state, it’s thanks to "Atlas Shrugged," "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" and Rand’s other works.

But whether Krugman knows this or not, many other people do. What worries advocates of the welfare state is that they have never before faced any moral opposition.

Whatever the rhetoric of Republicans and Democrats in the past, they agreed on the basic goal: more and more government controls are necessary to rein in businessmen, “manage” the economy, and minister to those in need.

No matter which party was in power, therefore, we got things like Sarbanes-Oxley, bailouts of GM and Citibank, a huge prescription drug “benefit” and ObamaCare.

Politics was a squabble about the efficacy of any proposed controls, not a dispute about the morality or immorality of imposing controls in the first place. As Krugman observes, in years past everyone “accepted the legitimacy of the welfare state.”
But now its advocates sense that this is no longer true, that some Americans are beginning to question the moral legitimacy of the welfare state. To strangle this questioning in the crib, supporters of government controls are trying to persuade their opponents to abandon Rand.

The current tactic is to tell Tea Partiers and “conservatives” that if you take religion seriously, you can’t be a fan of the atheist Ayn Rand. The American Values Network (AVN) has produced a short video containing snippets of Rand’s rejection of religion, which they hope to e-mail to more than a million people in Ryan’s home state of Wisconsin, asking citizens how they can support both Jesus and Rand.

Leaving aside AVN’s distressing attempt to blur the separation of church and state by basing politics on faith, this much is true. Rand’s moral teachings are fundamentally different from Jesus’ teachings.

A rational morality, Rand argued, teaches us the crucial values that make up a successful and happy life. Above all else, it instructs us to uphold reason as an absolute in our lives, as our only source of knowledge and only judge of values, and to achieve self-esteem in our souls. True self-esteem is the knowledge that by your own choices you’ve created a rational mind “competent to think” and a personal character “worthy of happiness.”

In terms of virtues, Rand’s is a moral code that upholds rationality not emotionalism or faith; intellectual independence not authority or obedience; earned pride not humility or the belief in man’s inherent sinfulness.

In Rand’s argument, morality is not about subordination or service to others or to some “higher power”; it is not about self-sacrifice. Hers is a morality that upholds egoism and individualism: it seeks to teach you the difficult task of pursuing the values that achieve your own individual self-interest and happiness.

Only an explicit or implicit individualist and egoist, Rand held, will understand and demand the rights listed in the Declaration of Independence: his inalienable rights to his own life, his own liberty, and the pursuit of his own happiness. He will demand his political freedom and reject all government controls designed to restrict his liberty and make him sacrifice for the “public interest.” He will oppose the welfare state.

Given her positive teachings, Rand must reject what is usually taken to be the core of Jesus’ moral teachings, the Sermon on the Mount. But before you dismiss this as unthinkable, ask yourself the following question. Did Jefferson and the other Founding Fathers not reject the Sermon’s advice in creating America?

As I’ve written before: “When the British struck America’s right cheek, did Jefferson in the Declaration tell America to turn to offer them the left? Did Jefferson love his enemy—or did he go to war with him? Did Jefferson, who had a gallery of worthies in his home, portraits of men like Isaac Newton and John Locke, think that the blessed are the poor in spirit—or that the only people worthy of admiration are those who choose to make something of their spirit? Did Jefferson and the other Founding Fathers think that the meek shall inherit the earth—or that, in Locke’s words, the rational and the industrious shall? Did Jefferson give up riches—or did he seek them?”

Today we face similarly stark choices. If we are to reject the welfare state as immoral and thereby restore the American dream of individualism, don’t we need a rational morality that challenges the centuries-old creed of self-sacrifice and instead argues for the individual’s moral right to his own life and happiness? In other words, don’t we need Ayn Rand?

"A champion of individual rights" and "the morality of individualism"? A self-centered philosophy to life by preaching the Me, Myself, And I Gospel? Does that sound like something that's consistent with what God's Word teaches us? No, it sounds like something that's more in line with the erroneous and un-Biblical idiom that claims "God helps those who help themselves..." Where is that in the Bible? Plus, the fact that this question ("Does America Need Ayn Rand Or Jesus?") was even asked in the first place is what concerns me here.

Look, I'm not naive. We all know from the holy Scriptures that our kingdom is not of this world, and we also know from end times Bible prophecy that things are only going to get worse, but it just pains me to have to bear witness to this kind of rank apostasy.

I still think that THIS IS THE BEST I'VE HEARD OF THE PROPER BIBLICAL RESPONSE to all the socio-political madness we're witnessing today.

For emphasis, Mike Huckabee chimed in recently as well (selected excerpts)...

Huckabee On How Current Candidates Should Discuss Politics And Economics

When should the federal government be involved in a domestic policy problem? Only when there is no practical way for it to be solved at the individual, the family, the community, or the church level. Only when it escapes all the strata below should it ever end up at the federal level. Seeing where individual responsibility stops and when the government picks up is more of an art than a science. People want to make very simplistic sort of slogan approaches to policy, and when you really get into issues it's a little more complicated than that.

What should GOP presidential candidates say about any future bailout proposals? We are not going to take money from people who are responsible, people who've worked very hard, who've saved, and been thoughtful and good stewards of their money and their businesses. We're not going to take their money and give it to people who've recklessly mismanaged their businesses, who've changed the dynamics of investing from investing in the real value of goods and services to speculation.

You can spot the veiled Christian references in both answers, right? That's a little comfortingI suppose, although I'm not holding on to any political pipe dreams here. Sure, it would be a blessing to be alive at a time when the Lord gives us a godly leader. Sadly, I think those days are long over.

Besides, I'm also not clinging to any false notions that a particular politician -- let alone a particular party -- is going to going to eventually come along to 'save this country' and 'save us' either. No, that job belongs to Someone Else already, and He has already provided us with a means of salvation. His name is the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Remember, it's not about Republicans or Democrats, The Right or The Left, Conservatives or Liberals. As Christians, it's ALWAYS about Jesus Christ and Sola Scriptura so Romans 13 certainly applies here as well.

Sorry Mr Chuck Baldwin, but while I agree with you politically on most things (and even supported you in the last Presidential Election) I cannot agree with your interpretation of Romans 13 and your desire to stir up passions against the ruling authorities -- authorities that were ultimately established by God to fulfill His plans and purposes for His people (Daniel 2:21).

What? You haven't read Baldwin's latest commentary?

Romans 13: Setting It Straight
By Chuck Baldwin
July 28, 2011

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the biggest reason
America is in the mess that it's in today is directly due to the
apathy and indifference of the American pulpit. I am reminded of what
Charles Finney, the famed 19th Century revivalist, said: "If there
is a decay of conscience, the pulpit is responsible for it. If the
public press lacks moral discernment, the pulpit is responsible for
it. If the church is degenerate and worldly, the pulpit is responsible
for it. If the world loses its interest in Christianity, the pulpit is
responsible for it. If Satan rules in our halls of legislation, the
pulpit is responsible for it. If our politics become so corrupt that
they very foundations of our government are ready to fall away, the
pulpit is responsible for it."

Our second President, John Adams, put it this way: "It is the duty
of the clergy to accommodate their discourses to the times, to preach
against such sins as are most prevalent, and recommend such virtues as
are most wanted. For example, if exorbitant ambition and venality are
predominate, ought they not to warn their hearers against those vices?
If public spirit is much wanted, should they not inculcate this great
virtue? If the rights and duties of Christian magistrates and subjects
are disputed, should they not explain them, show their nature, ends,
limitations, and restrictions, howmuchsoever it may move the gall of
Massachusetts."

Martin Luther, the great Protestant reformer, was even more direct.
He said, "If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest
exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that
little point which the world and the devil are at the moment
attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be
professing Christ. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the
soldier is proved. And to be steady on all the battle fields besides
is merely flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point."

For at least the past half-century Christian pastors and churches
have been all but neutered. On the whole, they have ignored Christ's
admonition to be the "salt of the earth", and as a result, have
failed to do much of anything to preserve freedom's Biblical Natural
Law principles in this great land. In fact, the average church is so
sugary sweet that it is downright sickening!

And the two main reasons for this dereliction of duty by America's
pastors and churches are the IRS 501c3 non-profit tax status, which
turns the Lord's church into a government corporation; and the
erroneous, fallacious interpretation of Romans chapter 13 that teaches
Christians are obligated to submit to government regardless of whether
government acts within the confines and jurisdiction of God's law or
not. In reality, the American church today, on the whole, is not even
a church. It is a government corporation whose loyalty is offered
first to Caesar, not to Christ, and whose message is first politically
correct before it is Biblically correct.

It is more than interesting that some 95% of the 14,000 evangelical
churches that graced the German landscape during Hitler's rise to
power bought into the identical misinterpretation of Romans 13 that
the vast majority (probably at least 95%) of the 300,000 evangelical
churches that grace America's landscape have bought into today.

For example, one German pastor in 1933 gushed, "Christ has come to
us through Hitler." In like manner, many pastors today foolishly
preach that God directs us through our President (whoever he is), or
our Supreme Court, or virtually any other government agency. And
speaking of the ignominious infatuation with government by Nazi-era
German clergymen, Erwin Lutzer, in his brilliant book, "Hitler's
Cross", wrote, "The swastika meant more to some pastors than did
the Cross." And there is absolutely no question that many pastors in
America today place far more value on the US flag (symbolizing to them
the power and authority of the state) than they do the Cross of Christ
or the teachings and authority of the Holy Scriptures.

Without a doubt, tyrants of all stripes love to exploit this asinine
attitude of these sheepish, slavish preachers who idolize the state!
Lutzer quotes Hitler as saying, "The parsons will dig their own
graves. They will betray their God to us. They will betray anything
for the sake of their miserable jobs and incomes." And that is
exactly what many pastors, deacons, elders, and churchmen are doing
today: for the sake of their paychecks, insurance premiums, and
retirement benefits, they are betraying the lawful authority of Christ
to the tyrannical authority of the state. And the bastardized teaching
of Romans 13 is one of the major tools by which this is being done.

Therefore, before we can see any significant return to legitimate
constitutional government in this country, the thinking and philosophy
of Christians and churches regarding Romans 13 must change. This is
absolutely obligatory!

The reality of the importance of a proper understanding of Romans 13
was the impetus behind my constitutional attorney son, Tim Baldwin,
and me co-authoring an in-depth analysis of Romans 13, which is
entitled "Romans 13: The True Meaning of Submission." This book is
absolutely a must read, if I do say so myself! We quote hundreds of
scriptures from both Testaments, along with hundreds of quotations
from Christian apologists, theologians, and philosophers throughout
history. Quite frankly, I do not know of another book such as this on
the market today.

To reiterate, sorry, but I completely disagree because SUBMISSION is the theme of all the Scriptures! Submission to God, submission to Jesus Christ, submission to the Holy Spirit, submission to His Word, submission to others -- submission, submission, submission!

With all due respect, while I do agree with a lot of what Mr Baldwin has to say about the problem with the church and its leaders today, I cannot fathom his incessant infatuation with telling the Body of Christ that we all have it wrong when it comes to our understanding of Romans 13. What causes him to reach that same conclusion time after time?

Other than the leading apostates who we're all quite familiar with (Rick Warren, Rob Bell, etc.), who are the others who are akin to Pastors who were living in Nazi Germany and promoting allegiance to Adolf Hitler? I haven't heard, or read, or seen Sermons from modern-day Preachers who are saying we need to blindly follow President Obama and anything and everything his administration puts into law because of Romans 13?

I guess what I'm getting at here is that Mr Baldwin's constant commentaries on Romans 13 (and the tone he always takes with us believers) seems suspicious to me and it seems closer to a Poligionist's point-of-view than a Christian's worldview. In fact, it seems downright Dominionist too! And that's the problem with Poligion's politicians.

I'm sorry to be so harsh myself, but are we really to believe that his newest book will "set the record straight" on Romans 13 for all of us? Doesn't Romans 13 set the record straight on Romans 13? My gosh! All one needs to do is read the Bible for themselves! I would suggest a thorough reading of the Book of Daniel with a intense focus on his life and times and his BIBLICAL RESPONSE to the tyrannical government that God established in his day and age. That would be my advice to everyone here.

Even The USA Today tried to add their two cents to this issue back in June 2011 with the piece "Religious People Can Agree With Ayn Rand", which I found laughable. The thrust of that commentary seems to come from this little gem...

"One can be a Christian and also believe that if we strive to rob the rich and give to the poor, there will be no rich left to rob. Thus we will all be poor."

Therein lies the problem. With Poligionists, it's always more about economics and politics than it is about Jesus and His Word. The specific focus here, in this case, is on economics and money. Whatever happened to Christians desiring holy, obedient, righteous living in pursuit of the spiritual blessings, and spiritual maturity, as opposed to living in pursuit of 'The American Dream' and material blessings? Welcome to the last days in the 21st Century.

Thankfully, not everyone is deceived by this cleverly camouflaged False Gospel masquerading and the real thing...

You Can't Reconcile Ayn Rand And Jesus

The new darling of the Republican Party is pro-choice and anti-religion. She once wrote that, since "an embryo has no rights," abortion "should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved." And when asked by Playboy magazine whether religion "ever offered anything of constructive value to human life" she answered "no," adding that "faith, as such, is extremely detrimental to human life."

Her name is Ayn Rand, and though she died in 1982 this novelist, philosopher and anti-communist crusader is the hot new thing in the GOP. The American public may have met the April opening Atlas Shrugged, a film based on her novel of the same name, with a collective shrug, but Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh tout her books, and her genius. And the opening line of "Atlas Shrugged" ("Who is John Galt?") pops up regularly on handmade signs at Tea Party rallies.

Faith. Religion. Spirituality. Meaning. In our ever-shrinking world, the tentacles of religion touch everything from governmental policy to individual morality to our basic social constructs. It affects the lives of people of great faith — or no faith at all. This series of weekly columns — launched in 2005 — seeks to illuminate the national conversation.

Among Rand's adoring acolytes on Capitol Hill is Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, who at a Library of Congress symposium held in 2005 on the centenary of the Rand's birth called her "the reason I got involved in public service." Texas Rep. Ron Paul, who announced his third presidential run last recently, has invoked Rand in the House on matters as disparate as NASA and the post office. His son, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, used her novel Anthem in Senate hearings in April to argue against government regulations to phase out the incandescent light bulb.

When asked to name his favorite political philosopher, George W. Bush named Jesus Christ. But Ayn Rand is the GOP's new savior, and no one seems to be taking notice of just how opposed their two philosophies are.

***********************************************************************************

Turning the tables on traditional Christian morality, Rand argues that altruism is immoral and selfishness is good. Moreover, there isn't a problem in the world that laissez-faire capitalism can't solve if left alone to perform its miracles.

As an adult, however, Rand's work reads to me like a vulgar rationalization for greed lying on top of a perverse myth of the right relationship between individual and community. So when Ryan says that, "Ayn Rand, more than anyone else, did a fantastic job of explaining the morality of capitalism, the morality of individualism," I have to question his use of the word "explaining." "Duping" seems like the more appropriate verb.

As someone who has written extensively on the religious illiteracy of the American public, I am not surprised that few Republicans today seem to understand that marrying Ayn Rand to Jesus Christ is like trying to interest Lady Gaga in Donny Osmond. But there is nothing Christian about Rand's Objectivism. In fact, it is farther from Christianity than the Marxism that Rand so abhorred. Despite the attempt of the advertising executive Bruce Barton to turn Jesus into a CEO in his novel The Man Nobody Knows (1925), Jesus was a first-class, grade-A "moocher."

I am somewhat surprised, however, at how few GOP thinkers seem to see how hostile her philosophy is to conservatism itself. Real conservatism is first and foremost about conserving a society's traditions, including its religious and political traditions. But Rand's Objectivism rejects in the name of reason appeals to either revelation or tradition. The individual is her hero, and God and the dead be damned.

Real conservatism is also about sacrifice, as is authentic Christianity. President Kennedy was liberal in many ways, but, "Ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country" was classic conservatism. Rand, however, will brook no such sacrifice. Serve yourself, she tells us, and save yourself as well. There is no higher good than individual self-satisfaction.

One of the reasons we are in our current economic quagmire is that none of our leaders is willing to ask us to sacrifice. Democrats call for more spending and more taxes; Republicans call for lower taxes and less spending, and what we get is the most fiscally ruinous half of each: lower taxes and more spending.

I highly recommend you take the time to read the whole thing. He's absolutely right. You can't reconcile Ayn Rand and Jesus.

In the interest of being 'fair and balanced', however, please note that the author of the above excerpt (who I believe, for the most part, nails it when it comes to this discussion) also wrote this unbelievable statement toward the end of his commentary...

"I don't see either Atlas Shrugged or the Bible as holy writ. I think the Bible is more wise, better written and, ironically, less likely to come across as holier than thou, but I have not come either to bury Ayn Rand or to lament her recent resurrection. My aim is to force a choice."

Of course. In the end, these days, it appears as if EVERYONE believes that man is much more wise than God. What an absolute shame indeed. Lord, have mercy on us all!

Let's cut to the chase in attempting to wrap this up. The danger in this discussion is allowing it to evolve to the point where even we become deceived in the way we frame it.

For instance, if we get to a point where we say that Ayn Rand's thesis is 'individualism vs. collectivism', and 'rich vs. poor', then we're no better than the Poligionists who we seek to reason with from a Biblical standpoint. It's also not about 'putting forth effort vs. doing nothing' either, or 'those who contribute to society vs. those who take from society' let alone about 'hard work vs. laziness' even. Again, to frame this discussion in any such way is to miss the point I'm trying to make here, and it would completely miss the big picture too.

The key point is that our kingdom is not of this world and so we need to be loosely tied to this one and everyone and everything in it. Sure, we shouldn't ever be 'happy' or 'ok' with the types of things we see our federal government and our politicians doing that we know to be wrong, but we also should understand (and accept) that God is sovereign -- not man.

Praying for a return to a genuine commitment to Jesus Christ and Sola Scriptura.

Share|

Read more »

Posted in: America In Prophecy,Apostasy,Bible Study,Chuck Baldwin,Economic Signs,How Close Are We?,Media,Moral Decline,Poligion,Political Signs,Spiritual Deception

Another Earth, Another You, Another Lie

So I saw a trailer for a new film the other day that caused me to pause for a moment and prayerfully consider the spiritual impact of such a flick upon its viewers, but especially upon non-believers.

Instantly, I thought of this truth...

1 Corinthians 10:23 (KJV) All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.

I tend to think that this verse best applies to a culture like ours, or one that's drowning in a polluted pond of Pop Culture thanks to Hollywood and the Media machine.

Yes, we all have freedom in Christ, but that shouldn't mean we feed our fleshly, sinful appetites with such worthless things that will only create a track of temptation in our hearts and minds, conditioning us more and more to an unholy belief system rather than the righteous one prescribed by the Bible.

Colossians 3:2 (KJV) Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth.

These are some of the key reasons why LUF spends so much time seeking to expose the dangers involved in a casual acceptance of (and passive submission to) such things like art, music, movies, and television.

That brings me to today's entry. I mentioned a trailer for a new film I saw. It's called Another Earth and it's about a character named 'Rhoda Williams', a Physics student at MIT (searching for the ever elusive 'God Particle' I'm sure), who is driving one day when she sees a planet and leans to get a better look. She hits a minivan and kills a family. She is imprisoned for 4 years, and upon release seeks out the widower of the family, a character named 'John Burroughs', who's a Composer. The planet she saw is a mirror planet of Earth, seemingly to the extent that it even has the same people on it (in other words, 'another you'), and an essay contest is held where the winner can ride a Space Shuttle (hey, did NASA contribute any money to this project?) to visit it. Williams considers the possibility of visiting it to find out what kind of life her 'mirror self' would have led.

Another Earth Trailer



You just know that such creative pursuits aren't really meant for mere 'mindless entertainment' (is there such a thing? and if so, why would any Christian want to be a part of it?), but are instead specifically created to promote a particular viewpoint (or to send a specific message) whenever they win such 'prestigious' awards from some art festival or other, right? Well, Another Earth fits that description I'm afraid given its Sundance Film Festival credentials.

Such a philosophical story is nothing new really. However, there seems to be a a movement these days that more and more people are building up to a sort of existential rage because they've been raised with the 'Self-Esteem Gospel' as opposed to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. When they grow up they are shocked to learn that their actions have real consequences. When they realize that their lives don't match the 'You-Can-Be-Anything-You-Want-To-Be' great commission of the Self-Esteem Gospel, then you have an entire generation the raises its collective fist angrily at God, demanding a 'do over' or a 'second chance' free from any moral obligation or sovereign restraint. It's a tragedy really.

I suppose it's only natural then to witness those same types of people playing out their anxieties and fears, their hopes and dreams, their opinions and points-of-view through such vehicles as art and film. Again, nothing new. Yet, there does seem to be this emerging meme that speaks to everyone's wish for a 'second chance', a cosmic 'do-over' by hitting the Reset Button on life -- their life -- by, hopefully, finding out one day that there's 'another you' somewhere out there in the universe; another you that actually achieved what you were unable to so that you can perhaps learn from them and apply what you learn to your own life, or simply decide to live vicariously through them even.

Like I said before, it's a tragedy really. To think that there are millions of people out there who are waiting for such a New Age revelation is even more tragic.

"Jeff, imagine the possibilities though!" Spare me. The irony here (again, tragedy) is that millions of people who subscribe to this mindset fail to realize that Jesus Christ already offers them a second chance, but they choose to reject Him.

2 Corinthians 5:14- (KJV) For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead: And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again. Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more. Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

There's your highly coveted second chance! Forget about 'another earth' and 'another you' because through repentance and faith in Jesus Christ you can become "a new creature" instead. That's the business God's in -- making new creations.

What must you do to receive that new life and second chance you covet so much? Read John 3 and the critical exchange between Jesus and a man named Nicodemus. Then LISTEN TO THIS as an appropriate follow-up to help clarify things.

When we receive Christ, the old man dies, the new man rises. "I am crucified with Christ", that's one ego dead, "nevertheless I live", that's a new life (Galatians 2:20). He says you've got to start all over again, Nicodemus! All your religiosity, all your legalism, all your ritualism, all your ceremonialism, all the stand up, sit down, and do the Law...is all meaningless. You need to be reconstructed from the inside. You can't cure a man's disease by simply painting over it on the outside. You've got to get into the inside and root it out.

So, at the point of faith when you receive Jesus Christ, the Spirit of God recreates you, regenerates you by the washing of the power of the Word, and brings life where there was death.

I mean, my gosh, sometimes it's so incredibly tragic (there's that word again today) as a believer to hear and see how close the lost seem to be to the truth about the Truth, and yet, because of their unregenerated condition (their unrepentant, sinful state) they can't see that reality.

For instance, Dennis Overbye of The New York Times called Another Earth "a meditation on guilt and redemption in crisscrossing worlds", which calls to mind...

Ephesians 6:12 (KJV) For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

Ephesians 1:13-14 (KJV) In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

My dear friend, if you are reading this today as a non-believer, and you can identify with the memes and themes presented for discussion and thought in the film Another Earth, then I'm here to tell you that such a reality isn't out of reach because it's mere Science Fiction.

Humble yourself, cry out to God and repent for your sins, ask Him to forgive you and He will do so much more than that! He will grace you with His forgiveness, mercy, and salvation through Jesus Christ, and at the moment that you place your faith in the Lord and Savior and commit your life to Him you'll be indwelled with the Holy Spirit, "born again" as the Scriptures say, and truly "a new creature" in Christ!

Go back and re-read John 3 about Nicodemus. Notice something else about that exchange in regards to this new birth, this new you. If you took a person at the point of salvation and put him in an X-Ray Machine, you wouldn't see anything different. It would be ridiculous. You can't see the new birth. I didn't even see my own.

The day that I received Jesus Christ, I didn't see my new birth. But you know what? Boy, did I start feeling the results! By the way, I've never seen the wind either, but I've seen lots of trees bend because of the wind. Jesus says, in a sense, "Nicodemus, you don't have to see it to believe it, you can just see the results!"

Look, this whole concept presented in the movie Another Earth about another you is nothing more than another lie. Sure, it's appealing (and I completely understand why), but that's how all things anti-Christ are. It's just another ploy by Satan to get you to look beyond the God of the Bible and to the stars, seeking a savior that is anything but Him, and it's a message that puts a unique spin on the age-old deception that you can save yourself. You can't.

Tell you what, save yourself some money and refrain from seeing this film unless it's to familiarize yourself with it so that you can use it as a springboard for preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Spend that money on a Holy Bible instead and let the Living Word you read within its pages lead you to a new you.

Share|

Read more »

Posted in: Aliens UFOs,Ancient Mythology,Angels,Apostasy,Creation,Hollywood's Role,How Close Are We?,Media,NASA,Nature And Environment,New Age,Spiritual Deception,Symbolism,Synchro-Pop,Witnessing

Evidence That You Are A Christian

Profound truth this morning...

How can you tell if you're a Christian? If the sins of the flesh are foreign to your desires. If sin and inequity is not what you want. If you don't rationalize all of your sins. So the first element in the pattern of victory, we talked about the power of victory, the Holy Spirit, the people of victory, believers, we're talking about the pattern of victory, the first element in the pattern of victory is to realize that we are not after the flesh, we no longer mind the things of the flesh, we owe nothing to the flesh. That was true of us in an unregenerate condition. First we have to realize we are new people with new desires. Then the second step, back to the passage, is a step of action. First is a step of recognition of our situation, understanding the character of being a Christian or the nature, the disposition. Then secondly acting upon it and that's verse 13, put to death the deeds of the body. And again this is another axiom, as I said, if you're killing the deeds of the body you will live. You say why, because you give evidence of overcoming the flesh and since the flesh can't overcome the flesh that proves the Spirit dwells in you. Right? And the Spirit only dwells in those who are God's. If you're the one that's killing the deeds of the body then you are the one who is spiritually alive. If you're enjoying triumph over sin - I want to quickly add you never really enjoy it except in moments of triumph because no matter how much you have victory over sin you'll always be heartbroken over the defeats. So really this is a test of your salvation.

Paul says you should be seeing victory over the flesh. The flesh again is that unredeemed humanness, that complex of attitudes and viewpoints and impulses and desires and longings and motivations that go along with being fallen and human. It's that part of us where sin has taken its residence. That's why in chapter eight as we'll see later on Paul just cries out for the redemption of his body to get rid of this fallen flesh. Believers are those who are in the battle, in the struggle. People always wanna debate whether Romans 7 is describing a non-believer or a believer. And I've wrestled with that for years and years and never been convinced even though I've read all of the best arguments that it is even possible for a non-believer to be in that battle. I really do believe that that's the struggle that a believer has. And the only hope is in the energy and power of the Holy Spirit. Believers are those who are in the process of the battle and they're winning. They're not winning like they would like to win; they feel the remorse that Paul felt but they're winning by the Spirit's presence and power. They're seeing victory over the deeds of the flesh. They win. They kill the deeds of the flesh.

-- John MacArthur / The Key To Spiritual Victory (1997)

You can read the entire Sermon HERE or simply listen to it HERE.

Share|

Read more »

Posted in: Apostasy,Bible Study,Daily Bread,Great Commission,John MacArthur,Revelatory Revival,Sola Scriptura,Spiritual Growth,Witnessing