"My Hope America" with Billy Graham, and a look at Graham's teachings (Part 1)

Reblogged from the-end-time.blogspot.com 

Billy Graham is about to turn 95-years-old. He is often called "the world's most admired man" or "the greatest living American." He is said to have personally presented the Gospel to 215 million people, and to millions more via programs on the web, tv, radio and film.

"And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you." (Matthew 24:4)

Given Mr Graham's extensive-lasting impact on the world, his long life, and the flurry of interest around his upcoming movie, "My Hope America with Billy Graham", I am writing these things so that we can all be reminded that deception can come in any form and at any time.

If you have not been aware of the various aberrant and doctrines Mr Graham believes, then you might be shocked and upset that I am daring even to say these things about such a person of stature. However, as Cecil Andrews laid out the case against Graham carefully out in his 2001 speech, "Billy Graham: The Man and His Message," (link at end)

"We need to do that [test the spirits] not just with Billy Graham, but with many others who are up on pedestals in the evangelical world. They've built a reputation early in their life, but where are they today? I'll tell you, they are in the forefront of the compromising, ecumenical world that you and I are being challenged with."

When the Apostle Paul was tested by the Bereans, and his words and teaching compared with scripture, and the Bereans were lauded for it.

"Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so." (Acts 17:11)

Note that they were said to be of noble character because of two things: they received the word with eagerness, and they examined them against Scripture to see if what was being taught was true. Mr Graham, despite his popularity, or perhaps because of it, should no more escape scrutiny than any other teacher of our faith.

Graham, Osteen, Warren

I have long thought personally, that the three seemingly-Christian men most impacting the faith in negative ways in the 20th and 21st century are Billy Graham, Joel Osteen, and Rick Warren. For the women, I personally believe Beth Moore has done the most damage. I've written about or mentioned most of those on my list, but not Mr Graham, because he is no longer active. However with his new film being produced and promoted, to be released next month, I felt it necessary to lay out the case for caution, for your scrutiny and edification. Take heed.

Born November 7, 1918, according to the website NNDB, which offers profiles of noteworthy individuals, "Graham's "big break" came in the 1940s, when publishing magnate William Randolph Hearst got wind of Graham's then-recurring theme that the Cold War was a showdown between good and evil, and that communists were Satan-worshippers. "Either communism must die or Christianity must die," Graham famously preached, and Hearst sent a memo to all of his papers' editors, ordering them to "puff Graham". Prior to that, Graham had been just another traveling evangelist, holding meetings in half-empty tents. After that and for the rest of his life, he has been America's most prominent Christian leader."

Please note that the man came to prominence expounding on political, worldly matters. His statement equates an eternal, heavenly faith structure with a man-made worldly political structure. Secondly, anyone who reads the bible knows that Christianity will not die, no matter how many political or governmental structures have existed or will come to existence. However, in 1949, communism was a very big problem, consuming the interest and attention of those in power.

Yet in 60AD, Apostle Paul did not say that "Either Rome's Emperor system must die or Christianity must die." It is written, 

"Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God." (Romans 13:1)

Since then, Mr Graham has appeared on Gallup's list of most admired men of the 20th century, appearing 55 times since 1955 (including 49 consecutive years), more frequently than any other individual in the world.

"Woe to you, when all people speak well of you, for so their fathers did to the false prophets." 

(Luke 6:26)

But let's go back to his beginnings. In his youth, Graham was rejected for membership in youth group because he was "too worldly". After graduating high school in 1936, Graham attended Bob Jones College but he felt constrained by the restrictions and called it too legalistic (likely because Graham had earned a stack of demerits for disobedience). In addition, he was almost expelled, and wound up having a long sit-down with Bob Jones, Sr. about Graham's future. Graham transferred to another college. After attending three total colleges, Graham eventually graduated from Wheaton in 1943 with a degree in anthropology. His college sojourn lasted 7 years, and please note his degree was not in religious or biblical studies. (Source, and source)

When he burst upon the scene in 1948 Graham did not seem to compromise on the basics, at least overtly, but over time he retreated on all fronts. David Frost said that in the beginning Graham used to say "the bible says" but as time went on he would more often say 'what Billy Graham thinks'.

The basics, or essential doctrines to which one must adhere or the truth is not in them, according to CARM.org are:

"The Bible itself reveals those doctrines that are essential to the Christian faith. They are 1) the Deity of Christ, 2) Salvation by Grace, and 3) Resurrection of Christ, 4) the gospel, and 5) monotheism. These are the doctrines the Bible says are necessary. Though there are many other important doctrines, these five are the ones that are declared by Scripture to be essential (I call them primary essentials since the Bible declares them as essential). A non-regenerate person (i.e., Mormon or Jehovah's Witness, atheist, Muslim), will deny one or more of these essential doctrines. Please note that there are other derivative doctrines of scripture that become necessary also, the Trinity being one."

Though there are many troubling statements Mr Graham has made which gives one pause for thought, (I'll list them below and also provide links) the essential doctrine Mr Graham denies is the Gospel. Let's take a closer look. CARM.org again:

"The Gospel:

"But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!" (Gal. 1:8-9). Verses 8 and 9 here in Galatians are a self declarative statement that you must believe the gospel. The gospel message which in its entirety is that Jesus is God in flesh, who died for sins, rose from the dead, and freely gives the gift of eternal life to those who believe."

He gives the gift of life to those who believe. Mr Graham has on many occasions, years and decades apart, denied the exclusivity of the Gospel, denied who are truly believers, and denied what they must believe. Here are specifics:

Graham & Schuller

In his interview with Robert Schuller in May 1997 on The Hour of Power, Billy Graham opened up the family of faith to Buddhists, Muslims, and non-believers. Here in a sermon from 2000, John MacArthur repeats the interview and expounds in between each of Graham's statements with biblical truth:

-------------------begin MacArthur-----------------------

John MacArthur: "Those of us who teach the Bible, those of us who uphold sound doctrine have to rise up and speak the truth. I've tried to show you the breadth of this problem and I want to conclude comments on people and issues with a particular focus this morning."

"Through the years we have all become influenced by Billy Graham. One way or another he has, for us, been the spokesman for evangelical Christianity. He has become the symbol of gospel preachers to the world and even to the church. He, more than anyone else, has influenced evangelicalism through his preaching, through his cooperative evangelism, through his influence on Wheaton College, Fuller Seminary, Christianity Today and many other agencies."

"There is an article in a journal that comments and reviews his autobiography, Just As I Am. And I think it's worth giving you some insight into that because I think it points out the breadth of this problem. The editor of the journal says, "While Graham has become the very symbol of gentle, compassionate and loving evangelicalism, he has also become the symbol for evangelicalism that speaks cautiously, politically and non-theologically. He was never able to escape the fuzzy a-theological pragmatism of modern evangelicalism. It is Billy Graham more than any other figure in this century who helped to create by his overwhelming persona the present evangelical crisis which threatens to destroy the very institutions and causes in which Graham invested his life and energy for over 55 years," end quote."

"That is a sad statement, but it is an appropriate one in view of the facts. A recent public interview with Billy Graham and Robert Schuller underscores this. Graham has uncritically praised Schuller's ministry, which is a ministry of what is called neo-orthodoxy combined with psychology, not a true historic Christianity. But in the discussion, and here it is verbatim, I'll just share some things that will open to you the understanding."

"Dr. Schuller speaks, speaking to Billy Graham. "Tell me, what is the future of Christianity?"

Dr. Graham: "Well, Christianity and being a true believer, you know, I think there's the body of Christ which comes from all the Christian groups around the world, or outside the Christian groups. I think everybody that loves Christ or knows Christ, whether they're conscious of it or not, they're members of the body of Christ. And I don't think that we're going to see a great sweeping revival that will turn the whole world to Christ at any time."

"Now let me stop there. He said that non-Christian groups are members of the body of Christ, that people can love Christ and know Christ whether they're conscious of it or not and be members of the body of Christ. And therefore we're not going to see a sweeping revival that will turn the whole world to Christ at any time, ostensibly because it isn't necessary."

"He [Graham] goes on to say. "What God is doing today is calling people out of the world for His name. Whether they come from the Muslim world, or the Buddhist world, or the Christian world, or the non-believing world, they are members of the body of Christ because they've been called by God. They may not...he says...even know the name of Jesus, but they know in their hearts that they need something that they don't have and they turn to the only light they have and I think they're saved and they're going to be with us in heaven."

Dr. Schuller: "What I hear you saying is that it's possible for Jesus Christ to come into a human heart and soul and life even if they've been born in darkness and have never had exposure to the Bible. Is that a correct interpretation of what you're saying?"

Dr. Graham: "Yes it is because I believe that. I've met people in various parts of the world in tribal situations that they have never seen a Bible or heard about a Bible, have never heard of Jesus but they've believed in their hearts that there is a God and they tried to live a life that was quite apart from the surrounding community in which they lived."

Dr. Schuller: "This is fantastic. I'm so thrilled to hear you say that. There's a wideness in God's mercy, Dr. Graham, there is...there definitely is."

"In response to that interview, the editor of this journal wrote the Billy Graham Organization and received a reply that said, "Dr. Graham's views were the same as they have always been." Apparently his views have always been that Muslims are part of the body of Christ, Buddhists are part of the body of Christ, non-believers are part of the body of Christ, people who have never heard of a Bible are part of the body of Christ if they're trying to be better than the people around them. People who never heard of Jesus are part of the body of Christ."

-------------------end MacArthur-----------------------

(Television interview of Billy Graham by Robert Schuller, broadcast in southern California on Saturday, May 31, 1997).

Graham refused to speak the Gospel to Larry King in 2005, and in fact refused to declare Jews or Mormons were lost souls

KING: But what about those faiths -- the Mormons and the others that you mentioned -- believe in Christ. They believe they will meet Christ. What about those like the Jews, the Muslims, who don't believe they ...

GRAHAM: That's in God's hands. I can't be the judge.

KING: You don't judge them?

GRAHAM: No.

KING: How do you feel when you see a lot of these strong Christian leaders go on television and say, you are condemned, you will live in hell if you do not accept Jesus Christ, and they are forceful and judgmental?

GRAHAM: Well, they have a right to say that, and they are true to a certain extent, but I don't -- that's not my calling. My calling is to preach the love of God and the forgiveness of God and the fact that he does forgive us. That's what the cross is all about, what the resurrection is all about, that's the gospel. And you can get off on all kinds of different side trends, and in my earlier ministry, I did the same, but as I got older, I guess I became more mellow and more forgiving and more loving."

Is it loving to refuse to use the worldwide media opportunity such as the then-popular Larry King show to expound on what Jews and Muslims need to do to be saved? No, it is not.

In each decade from the 1950s onward, since Graham burst upon the scene, Christians have been presented clear indications of Graham's aberrant beliefs. He praised Catholicism in the 1950s, in fact in In 1967, he was the first Protestant to receive an honorary degree from Belmont Abbey College, a Roman Catholic school. He has included rabbis and priests as counselors to inquirers at each crusade, effectively handing over little children seeking Jesus to a devastating cycle of apostasy and hopelessness. As mentioned in the Decision Magazine inquiry, Graham has believed since at least 1960 that most people will go to heaven. He believes in baptismal regeneration, the inclusion of old earth and evolution as part of God's works, that Mary the mother of Jesus should receive higher due, that there is life on other planets who worship God ... and so on.

His aberrant beliefs cannot be attributed to recent old age, infirmity, confusion, or anything else except that he was and is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

I am sorry to say that and it gives me no pleasure, but in testing his beliefs against the bible, one must conclude that Mr Graham does not know the true, biblical Jesus, and is in fact a liberal compromiser in pursuit of earthly rewards, fame, and celebrity.

"To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." (Isaiah 8:20)

"Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, 3and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world. You are of God, little children, and have overcome them, because He who is in you is greater than he who is in the world. They are of the world. Therefore they speak as of the world, and the world hears them. We are of God. He who knows God hears us; he who is not of God does not hear us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error. (1 John 4:1-6)

In part 2 I'll look at Mr Graham's movie, the movie's designated evangelistic strategy of 'friendship evangelism', discuss 'decisional regeneration', and conclude with some general remarks. Below are many links to writings, quotes, and videos of Mr Graham's apostasy. Please check them out yourself and as with everything test the spirits and use only the bible as your benchmark of truth. And stay away from Graham's "My Hope America" movie.

--------------------------

Links

Tim Challies: Billy Graham and Ecumenicism (essay)

John MacArthur clip, A Wideness in God's Mercy? (video)

Cecil Andrews: Billy Graham: The Man and His Message (video)

World View Weekend: Billy Graham (article)

David Cloud: Billy Graham’s Sad Disobedience To The Word Of God (note: I disagree with a lot of Mr Cloud's teaching but the article I've linked to is mostly Graham quotes and discussion of same, with sources)

John MacArthur: Deliverance: From the Temporal World to the Eternal Kingdom (sermon)

Midwest Today: A Conversation with Billy Graham, 1997 (news article, printed interview)

CARM.org: Billy Graham

‘World Cup of Terror’ coming to Brazil

‘World Cup of Terror’ coming to Brazil

Islam at your Doorstep

 - Alf Cengia - www.omegaletter.com
 
Prior to the 2011 September 11 terrorist attacks on the Twin Towers, I had only had a somewhat vague idea about what Islam was and what Muslims believed. I knew that Cassius Clay had converted to Islam and changed his name to Muhammad Ali. I only remember thinking that it was an odd thing for someone to do.

I'd also seen old films characterizing Arabian Sultans as fearsome individuals intolerant of infidels and constantly calling for their beheadings via large scimitars. But that's Hollywood for you.

Even the Warner Bros Cartoons depicted the odd angry Muslim character running around screaming and waving a scimitar. I was fed all that television programming as I grew up. Given that, I can understand how someone might point to these examples and evoke the term "conditioned Islamophobia."

As a foil to that negative "conditioning" I had been persuaded by various New Age authors who taught that Islam's Allah was the same person as the God of the Bible. They affirmed that Islam was another valid and peaceful expression of faith, along with all the other faiths. At one narrow point in time I had come to believe it.

We rarely saw women wearing hijabs or burqas during my earlier years in Melbourne Australia. They were confined to two or three suburbs which had a local mosque. These suburbs had once been strongly represented by post-WW2 European migrants - Greeks, Italians and Maltese. Over the course of time, many of these migrants moved to the outer suburbs and the demographics gradually began to favor a Muslim population.

From my perspective, this phenomenon seemed to accelerate after 9-11. Statistics may show otherwise and, possibly, I only began to notice the change because of 9/11. I do remember a local incident not extensively reported in the media at the time of the attack on the Twin Towers. Many Muslim workers at a Motor Car Plant had cheered the terrorists.
That was when I began noticing things. Like a bucket of cold water poured over me as I slept, 9/11 woke me with a start. I'm sure it had a similar effect on others.

As the Muslim population grew in the suburbs I mentioned earlier, Melbourne Muslims gradually obtained official roles in local governing bodies. This was only natural. In fact in my own suburb, yuppies often moved in and got themselves into local government. They then closed off streets - those they happened to reside in - to passing motorists, thereby causing peak traffic congestions.

Post 9/11, the sightings of hijabs became more frequent and signaled that some change was in the air. A local fast food outlet had made a management decision to exclusively cater halal-prepared meat. Protests were summarily treated with disdain by the media.
In one suburb, there was a proposal by a Muslim group to close the public swimming pool for one day a week so that Muslim women could use the facility in private. The idea was immediately met with strong community protest and subsequently quashed. I sympathized with the women, yet I also saw it as an encroachment by a different culture on ours.

Another change the Islamic community wanted to bring (and still do) was the acceptance of polygamous marriage according to Sharia law. One Investigate Journalist discovered instances where Muslim men had already married more than one woman via Sharia. In one example a man had three wives and each had children. The two illegal wives were supported by state welfare programs.

Of course there are the secular and Islamic apologists who present a sanitized, tolerant Sharia which purportedly meshes with Western culture. Mohamad Abdalla writes that a Muslim in a Western society is obliged to observe Sharia rules only concerning rituals, food, marriage and divorce etc. He notes that Australian family law is "accommodating" and that Sharia is being "practiced quietly in Australia." I would add - very quietly.
In response, James Arlandson cites ten marriage rules in the Qur'an that oppress and insult women. Some Imams in Britain interpret Sharia marriage laws to include the stoning of women caught in adultery, among other things.

A friend who attended a Victorian University once told me that campus bathrooms had been fitted with facilities for foot washing and that this was in response to consistent Muslim student lobbying. This is fair enough. But he also noted that some professors privately confided their reservations as to why so many of them seemed disproportionately interested in chemistry classes.

Some might argue the professors were closet Islamophobes, or that they had over-reacted.

Even so, ground level opinion of Islam in Australian communities nose-dived after incidents such the Benbrika home grown terror cell scare. The cell members were contemplating the best location for setting off a bomb. Among other things, Sheik Abdul Benbrika was recorded as telling his disciples:

"What we want to do [here] is to do maximum damage and damage their property. Damage their lives...Like Spain. I've been thinking about a lot...all this stuff is pleasing to Allah. It's pleasing to Allah."

Obviously he hadn't read Mohamad Abdalla's memo.

There appears to be a vast disparity between the Sharia which apologists seek to defend and its interpretation and practice where it enjoys free reign in an Islamic dominant environment. Deposed Egyptian President Morsi's view on Sharia and governance sums this up well:

"...the Koran was and will continue to be our constitution. I take an oath before Allah and before you all that regardless of the actual text [of the constitution]... Allah willing, the text will truly reflect [Sharia], as will be agreed upon by the Egyptian people, by the Islamic scholars, and by legal and constitutional experts."

In the West, the god of multiculturalism and diversity can be fickle. Its worshipers shun anything they consider Islamophobic. They'll vigorously guard Islamists and defend the right to Sharia. In contrast, anti-Semitism generally slips under the radar and mocking Christians often gets a nod.

Many Australians have become aware of the creeping demands of Sharia, even in a culture where Islam is a minority. In Europe where, Muslim populations enjoy a greater growth, Sharia has left an indelible impact on some societies. Marseille France is one example where multiculturalism has seen Islam beginning to dominate a city.

Westerners tend to defend Islam by disassociating Sharia with any negative practices, or terrorist acts with Islam. At the same time there appears a push to eradicate Christianity from the culture. I wonder how they'd react if one day they woke up with Islam at their doorsteps as have the Marseillais?
It's not a matter of being Islamophobic to take note of these things - it's a case of being realistic.

The Great Apostasy

Saturday, October 19th, 2013

A Feature Article By Jack Kelley
Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction (2 Thes 2:3).

In the King James, the Greek word translated “rebellion” above is rendered “falling away.” The actual Greek word is “apostasia” from which we get the English word “apostasy”. This word is most often used to describe the departure from one’s religion. It’s when someone says they believed in a particular religion in the past, but later left that religion, and said they either no longer, or never did, believe in it.

Because Paul said this apostasy would precede both the Day of the Lord and the public introduction of the anti-Christ, many students of prophecy are trying to determine whether Paul’s prophecy has been or is being fulfilled.

In reality it’s not as simple as it seems for two reasons. One is that the apostates of today still see themselves as believers in Christ, and don’t feel they’ve left the religion. The other is that the apostasy has been going on a lot longer than most people realize.

You Must Be Born Again

For example, the Bible says we must be born again in order to see the kingdom of God (John 3:3). I know the phrase “born again” carries negative connotations in some “Christian” circles, so let’s define what it means.

John 1:12-13 says that to those who received the Lord and believed in His name He gave the right to become children of God – children born not of natural descent nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

In John 3:5-6 Jesus equated being born again with being born of water and of the Spirit. Since we all spend the first nine months of our existence in a sac of amniotic fluid that is very similar in composition to sea water, we are all born of water. This is what John had called being born of natural descent or of human decision or a husband’s will in John 1:12-13.

Being born of the Spirit takes place when we believe we are a sinner in need of a Savior and that Jesus came to Earth to die for our sins. Paul said at that moment we are marked in Him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance (Ephes. 1:13-14). In God’s view we immediately become a new creation that replaces the old one (2 Cor. 5:17) and receive the full rights of a child of God (Galatians 4:4-7). This is what being born again means.

For most of its 2,000 year history the great majority of Christians have believed this basic tenet of our faith, but sadly that is no longer the case. According to a recent poll by the Barna Group, in the US only about half of those who claim to be Christians also identify themselves as being born again.

It’s hard to say when this apostay began because it’s been happening gradually, but it can probably be traced to the decision by the formerly great main line denominations to replace being born again with membership in a local congregation as the condition for receiving salvation. This happened after theological liberalism began invading American seminaries in the early 20th Century. The deity of Jesus, the inspiration of Scripture, the existence of Hell, the Lord’s claim to being the only way to salvation and other traditional Christian beliefs were also called into question. The late Dr. Walter Martin said this is how theological liberalism eventually became a cult.

Because of that we now have a couple of generations of good people who attend church regularly and call themselves Christians but don’t meet the requirement of John 3:3 to have eternal life. They can’t really be called apostates because they never left the faith they came into. It’s the liberal denomination they belong to that has become apostate.
Many of the true believers among them eventually left these denominations in search of a church that still believes what the Bible teaches. But they weren’t falling away from the faith, they were falling toward it. The “Jesus movement” of the 1970′s was probably the most concentrated exodus from the denominations. Most of the ones who stayed where they were had always been Christians in name only and were happy where they were.

On the other side of the coin we have the Evangelical churches, many of which are non-denominational . They’re the ones the true believers came to after leaving their apostate denominations. Over the years they’ve attracted more people and even though they have consistently taught about sin and salvation, and the need to be born again, some responded to the gospel message and some didn’t.

The ones who didn’t got tired of hearing about it and began drifting away to the emerging churches where sin and salvation aren’t talked about so much and where attending church was more exciting to them. When they got there they joined up with the children of the remaining Christians in name only from the denominations, who had left because they didn’t think the religion of their parents was relevant. (At least they were right about that.)

The emerging church movement talks about the need to be followers of Christ, not just believers, and places great emphasis on the so-called social gospel. Their leaders tap into the youthful energy of their followers with endless ministry programs that keep the membership busy and fulfilled. The fact that many of their “Christ followers” aren’t saved doesn’t seem to trouble them.

That brings us back to the definition of apostasy. Remember, apostasy is when someone says they believed in a particular religion in the past, but later left that religion, and said they either no longer, or never did, believe in it.

The operative phrase is never did. Now don’t misunderstand me here. I’m making general observations about these groups. I know there are born again believers among the population of denominational Christians and there are born again believers among those who attend emerging churches.

But for the most part, when the liberal denominations went apostate the pastors and members who stayed never did believe in the need to be born again. It was the true believers who left.

The opposite was the case with the evangelical churches. Most of those who left to join the emerging church never did believe in the need to be born again either. It was the true believers who stayed.

But the end result was the same.  Whether they stayed as in the first case, or left as in the second, they weren’t falling away from their faith, because it was a faith they had never embraced. Remember, Paul quoted the Holy Spirit in saying that in later times some would abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons (1 Tim. 4:1).  He didn’t say they would abandon “their faith” which would have implied it was something they personally held, he said they would abandon “the faith”, meaning the faith held in common by born again believers.

And in 2 Timothy 3:5 he said these people will have a form of godliness but will deny its power. This describes the Christians in name only, since born again believers cannot deny the power of God in their lives.

How Do You Know These Things?

How can we be sure that true believers are not abandoning their faith? First, we’ll look at a couple of overview statements. In John 5:42 Jesus said,
“Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes Him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned but has crossed over from death to life.”
Notice He didn’t say “will have eternal life”, he said “has eternal life”.  Whoever hears the word of the Lord and believes in what He did for us already has eternal life. In John 6:37-40 He said,
“All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”

Put into the shepherd/sheep analogy, if we ask to join the Father’s flock, He will entrust us to the care of His son, the Good Shepherd, who has promised not to drive any of us away or lose any of us. That means even if we wander off, as sheep are prone to do, He will go after us and bring us back (Luke 15:3-4).

Finally, in John 10:27-30 Jesus said no one could snatch us out of either His or His Father’s hand. (It doesn’t say no one but us.) Everyone who joins the Father’s flock is part of that flock forevermore. Paul explained how this happens.

Remember, in Ephesians 1:13-14 he said we were included in Christ when we heard the gospel of our salvation and believed it.  At that time we received the seal of the Holy Spirit as a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance.  There’s not a word anywhere in the New Testament about the seal being broken, or the deposit being returned, or the inheritance being canceled, and here’s why.

In 1 Cor 6:19-20 he said we are not our own but have been bought with a price.
In 2 Cor. 1:21-22 he said it’s God who makes us stand firm in Christ.  He anointed us,  set His seal of ownership on us and put His spirit in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.  So it’s God who bought us, and the price He paid was the blood of His Son (1 Peter 1:18). The Creator of the Universe has made us His own and the decision is irreversible.

God is not a man that He should lie, or the son of a man that He should change His mind. Does He speak and then not act? Does He promise and not fulfill? (Numbers 23:19)
“I have revealed and saved and proclaimed— I, and not some foreign god among you.You are my witnesses,” declares the Lord, “that I am God.  Yes, and from ancient days I am he. No one can deliver out of my hand.  When I act, who can reverse it?” (Isaiah 43:12-14)

As the tide of public opinion turns against the acceptability of being a Christian, two things are happening. Those who are truly born again are moving closer to God and to each other, and those who are Christian in name only are embracing the ways of the world and completing their move away from the faith they never embraced. This is the Great Apostasy. 10-19-13

Putin Wants to Deny Israel the Ultimate Deterrent. Is Obama in?

Putin Wants to Deny Israel the Ultimate Deterrent. Is Obama in?

"Has John Piper Lost His Mind?"

Reblogged from  www.solasisters.com
Posted by Christine Pack

So said my sister in a phone call shortly after the start of this year's Passion Conference, taking place now in Atlanta, GA (Jan 1-4). I'm sure she said this with all due respect to Dr. Piper, who has long been looked to as a solid teacher of the Reformed tradition. And yet in recent years, Dr. Piper has gone about giving his stamp of approval to various and sundry teachers, many of them solid and trustworthy, but some of them quite dangerous.

This stamp of approval first reared its ugly head when Dr. Piper brought out a young whippersnapper named Mark Driscoll as his keynote speaker at a Desiring God conference, years ago. In 2006, to be exact. This was the same Driscoll who went on later to shock us with his pornographic divinations and his fascist like handling of church members.  And yet, no public rebuking or distancing has gone on, that I know of, between Dr. Piper and his protégé.

Then Rick Warren got Dr. Piper's stamp of approval at the 2010 Desiring God Conference. Yes, that's right, Rick Warren. To paraphrase my friend Pastor Bob DeWaay, what made this particular alliance so very shocking was that Dr. Piper, who has long been regarded as one of the faithful few guarding the flock against false teaching was the very one who had opened the pen gate and ushered the wolf (Warren) right into the fold of his Desiring God conference.

"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves." Matthew 7:15 

"But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!" Gal 1:8 

"Watch yourselves, so that you may not lose what wea have worked for, but may win a full reward. Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works." 2 John 1:8-11

"I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them." Romans 16:17

Then, out came the approval stamp again at last year's Passion 2012 Conference, when Dr. Piper stood benignly by on stage as Louie Giglio exhorted the audience members to "(hear) the voice of God speak," during a Lectio Divina-ish type mystical prayer exercise.

And now we have this year's Passion 2013 Conference, currently underway in Atlanta, GA, at which John Piper is sharing the stage with false teachers Jesus Culture. Don't know who Jesus Culture is? Oh well, let me fill you in: Jesus Culture is an offshoot group out of Bill Johnson's heretical Bethel Church in Redding, CA. That's right, the same Bill Johnson of the glory dust and the angel feathers fame.




So why doesn't Dr. Piper storm out on the stage at Passion like a man on fire and rebuke this madness? Or, he could leave the conference and write an eloquent and heartfelt apology for his part in confusing the flock in his care by knowingly linking with false teachers.  I'd be all for that. And yes, I get that he's just a man, and no man is perfect. I'm not expecting perfection, but what I do desire to see is him seriously taking to heart the admonition in Scripture that not all should teach because those who do are judged more strictly (James 3:1). BUT, if Dr. Piper is unwilling to repent of going around giving false teachers his stamp of approval, then maybe one of our Godly pastors could fly to Minneapolis and wrestle the stamp away from him to keep him from further harming the flock. Just a thought.

"For an overseer, as God's steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it." Titus 1:7-9

Não, Caio Fábio, Jesus Não É Sua Chave Hermenêutica

Por Yago Martins

Nas primeiras vezes que eu li o texto da Grande Comissão e vi Cristo dizendo que deveríamos ensinar os discípulos a obedecer tudo o que Ele ordenou, eu fiquei me perguntando onde o resto do Novo Testamento entrava nisto. Não bastaria ficarmos com aquilo que Cristo falou, e só? Se temos os ensinos do próprio Deus-Filho registrados, para que mais palavras de homens mortais? Com pouco tempo de fé, pude encontrar boas respostas para meus questionamentos infantis. Porém, muitas pessoas ainda estão confundidas com este assunto. Um exemplo de promotor deste tipo de confusão é Caio Fábio, que hoje tem arrebanhado para sua religião muitos seguidores e fiéis:

Eu estou em Jesus, eu não estou na Bíblia. [...] O cara que quiser que Jesus e a Bíblia toda deem certo tá danado. [...] Pela Bíblia é melhor a gente acabar esse programa porque está todo mundo danado. [...] eu não ando [conforme o texto bíblico], tanto quanto Jesus [...]. Quem quer andar com Jesus, é assim. Quem quer base bíblica, vira fariseu, joga pedra.[1]

Em outro lugar, Caio Fábio diz que aquilo na Escritura que não está afirmando ou que 1. Jesus é Deus, ou que 2. somos pecadores, não passa de capricho ignorando por Cristo:

É estranho como Jesus e os apóstolos não usaram a Bíblia como argumento de fé [...] Afinal, a Bíblia jamais seria a apologia de Jesus; posto que Jesus fosse o Verbo vivo e falando o que a Bíblia nem poderia sonhar em falar, revelar e dizer… Cristãos que vivem para defender a Bíblia ainda não conheceram Jesus mesmo! [...] Da Bíblia o que se pode dizer é que ela é fiel como Palavra apenas porque afirma que Jesus é Deus e eu sou dos pecadores o principal! O mais é um diletantismo ao qual Jesus jamais teria tempo e animo para se dar… Depois que o Evangelho entrou em mim a Bíblia passou a ser apenas um Testemunho, mas não o Testemunho! Sim, pois em mim o Testemunho é o do Espírito! [2]

Em outro momento, concordando que o Jesus dos evangelhos não se parece nada com o Jesus que Paulo apresenta em Romanos 9-11, chamando esta posição de “simples, sábia e sensata”, Caio Fábio diz que estes capítulos são “um apêndice de um surto paulino” que não se parece com nenhum outro escrito ou com a prática de Paulo. “Na minha opinião, Romanos 9, 10 e 11 são totalmente dispensáveis. Sabe porque? A descrição de Paulo, tentando explicar o inexplicável, criou uma bananosa filosófica”. Ele ainda diz que as palavras negativas do texto, como “odiou”, não cabem, pois “não parecem com o todo de Jesus”. “Eu prefiro ficar com Jesus, que não sendo Paulo”, pregou coisas diferentes.

“Isso é o poder dessa chave hermenêutica”, diz ele. ”Meu amigo Paulo, eu lamento muito que você tenha tentado fazer essa viagem. Você não tinha nem linguagem. Você não tinha adequação”. ”É uma conversa que tem a ver com a dimensão de um homem judeu, psicologicamente maltratado, frustrado, perseguido, magoado”. Ele diz que vê, neste texto, “o surto do Paulo judeu”. Ele chama ainda, esta atitude de Paulo de uma “gafe” que empobreceu e enfeiou Deus. “quando Paulo coincide com Jesus, Paulo tá com tudo, quando Paulo fala como Paulo, eu olho um homem, um tempo, uma relatividade, uma circunstância”. Ele, literalmente, lança várias repreensões e conselhos ao apóstolo Paulo em vários momentos do vídeo [3].

A prerrogativa que ele e seus discípulos usam para tal posição é que eles possuem Jesus como chave-hermenêutica. Para eles, isso significa que só deve ser aceito como verdade Bíblica aquilo que for semelhante à imagem que eles possuem de Cristo. Se qualquer outro trecho da Escritura ensinar algo que, porventura, não pareça pertencer ao Cristo, então deve ser considerado anátema.

O que Caio Fábio e seus pupilos não conseguem perceber é que ter Jesus como nossa chave hermenêutica significa que nós vamos ler toda a Escritura procurando como cada ensino, cada doutrina e cada livro se relaciona com o Plano maior de Deus na redenção de Cristo, e não que vamos solapar tudo aquilo que não gostamos na Escritura com a desculpa de que “Jesus não pregaria isso”. Assim, uma constatação torna-se inegável: praticamente todos que advogam ter Jesus como chave hermenêutica são ímpios que leem a Escritura desconsiderando tudo aquilo que suas mentes carnais odeiam. 

Você encontra esta loucura nos blogs e comentários de tais homens. Ter Cristo como chave hermenêutica deveria nos motivar a encontrar como a história do Evangelho está prefigurada, confirmada, anunciada, ilustrada ou ensinada em cada página da Bíblia, e não nos fazer arrancar da Escritura tudo aquilo que a gente acha que Jesus não diria. Aqueles que dizem que as palavras de Jesus são mais importantes que as de Paulo, não entenderam as palavras de Jesus.

Eu, sinceramente, não entendo como uma pessoa inteligente pode cair em erro tão crasso. A igreja está fundamentada na doutrina dos Apóstolos (Ef 2:20). Nós não vimos Jesus pessoalmente, eles sim. Por isso que Pedro e João podiam falar sobre “as coisas que vimos e ouvimos”, pois eles estavam lá, e atestaram com sangue o que pregaram. Assim, como alguém comentou no meu Facebook certa vez, só pode ser um louco aquele que cisma em separar o ensino Bíblico do ensino de Jesus, a autoridade bíblica da autoridade de Jesus e a visão bíblica da visão de Jesus. Os discípulos precisam de toda a Escritura, e não de parte dela.

É um verdadeiro insulto a Jesus dizer que nada, a não ser parte do que foi registrado de Sua Revelação ao longo da história bíblica – a encarnação – vale a pena considerar como Palavra do Senhor. É como se dissessem que amam tanto suas esposas que não se importam com as mães, amigos, família, conversa ou qualquer coisa que não seja ela própria. Estes caem na condenação de Jesus, através de Paulo, quando condena aqueles que, dizendo ser apenas de Cristo, se recusavam a ouvir o que diziam os apóstolos (ver 1 Co 1:10-17).

Cristo prometeu aos seus apóstolos não apenas que o Espírito Santo os faria “lembrar de tudo o que vos tenho dito” (Jo 14:26), mas também que o Espírito Santo “vos ensinará todas as coisas” (Jo 14:26) e “vos guiará a toda a verdade” (Jo 16:13). Os apóstolos receberam de Cristo, através do Espírito, mais daquilo que o Senhor desejou que soubéssemos. O próprio Jesus deixou claro que ensinaria mais aos Apóstolos mesmo após Sua morte e ascensão. Paulo deixa isso claro aos Gálatas: “Irmãos, quero que saibam que o evangelho por mim anunciado não é de origem humana. Não o recebi de pessoa alguma nem me foi ele ensinado; pelo contrário, eu o recebi de Jesus Cristo por revelação” (Gl 1:11-12). É por isso que o apóstolo Pedro podia dizer que “o mandamento do Senhor e Salvador” foi “ensinado pelos vossos apóstolos” (2 Pe 3:2), além de dizer que os escritos de Paulo estavam equiparados com todo o Antigo Testamento, chamando-os de “Escritura” (2 Pe 3:16). Paulo podia dizer: “Se alguém se considera profeta ou espiritual, reconheça ser mandamento do Senhor o que vos escrevo” (1 Co 14.37).

O apóstolo agradecia a Deus sem cessar pelos Tessalonicenses: “ao receberem de nossa parte a palavra de Deus, vocês a aceitaram não como palavra de homens, mas segundo verdadeiramente é, como palavra de Deus” (1 Ts 2:13). Paulo ensinava “não com palavras ensinadas pela sabedoria humana, mas com palavras ensinadas pelo Espírito” (1 Co 2:13). Paulo não poderia ser mais claro: “Cristo fala por meu intermédio” (2 Co 13:3).

Outros livros também entram neste escopo. O próprio Paulo, em 1 Timóteo 5:17,18 diz fazer uma citação da “Escritura”, e segue fazendo duas referências: uma a Deuteronômio 25:4 e outra a Lucas 10:7 (usando até o mesmo fraseado grego)! Para o apóstolo, os escritos neotestamentários dos evangelhos também eram Palavra de Deus. Tanto os Evangelhos como as Epístolas no Novo Testamento vêm a nós com a autoridade de Jesus, e Ele quer que nós ensinemos essas coisas aos discípulos.

“Somos seguidores de Cristo ou de Paulo?”, podem perguntar alguns. “Como podemos seguir o ensino de outros homens além de Jesus?”, já me foi questionado. Respondo, com sinceridade, que Cristo é meu único Senhor. No entanto, tudo o que sabemos sobre Cristo vem de Paulo e dos outros discípulos de Cristo. Se não acreditarmos nestes, não nos sobra nada dAquele. Como alguém pode dizer que só segue Jesus, e não os apóstolos, se todos os registros que possuímos sobre Jesus provêm dos apóstolos e de seus companheiros? Cristo nunca escreveu sobre si. Tudo o que temos sobre Ele passou pela mão de seus discípulos primitivos.

Crer em Jesus está definitivamente ligado a crer nos Apóstolos e em seus companheiros. Se você não acredita na doutrina de Paulo, de Tiago, de Pedro, de Lucas, de Marcos, de Mateus, de João e de Judas, como você pode acreditar nos registros que alguns deles fizeram do Messias? Se Paulo disse algo em Romanos ou aos Coríntios que foi fruto de seus preconceitos ou de sua criação judaica, por que ele não poderia ter feito o mesmo ao instruir Lucas em seu registro do Evangelho? Se Pedro não é digno de toda a nossa confiança, ou se sua doutrina é inferior ou secundária, como podemos dar tanta atenção àquilo que Marcos aprendeu dele e registrou no Evangelho? Se Tiago poderia errar, por que não Mateus? Se João se enganou em suas epístolas ou no Apocalipse, por que acreditamos em seu registro da vida do Logos? A verdade que muitos tolos ignoram é que, ou você aceita o Novo Testamento por completo, até a última letra, ou você não tem Jesus, não tem cristianismo, não tem Bíblia, não tem fé e não tem salvação. Ou temos o Novo Testamento por completo ou não temos Testamento nenhum.

Deve-se admitir, então, que se vamos ter uma religião não doutrinária, ou uma religião doutrinária fundamentada meramente em verdades gerais, isso significa que não somente temos que nos livrar de Paulo, da igreja primitiva de Jerusalém, mas também de Jesus.[4]

Infelizmente, ainda há, em pleno século XXI, quem tente opor Jesus aos outros escritores bíblicos. Como disse Gresham Machen, tem-se a impressão que o liberal substitui a autoridade da Bíblia pela autoridade de Cristo. Tal homem diz que não pode aceitar o que ele considera um ensino imoral do Antigo Testamento ou um argumento sofisticado de Paulo, em oposição os simples e morais ensinos de Jesus. Assim, ele se considera o mais puro verdadeiro cristão, uma vez que, rejeitando todo o restante da Bíblia, ele só depende de Cristo[5].

Paulo deixa claro que as suas epístolas também são coisas que Jesus agora nos ordena, de tal modo que “aquele que rejeita estas coisas não está rejeitando o homem, mas a Deus” (1 Ts 4:8). Você entendeu bem o que acabou de ler? Você nega a Deus se ignora todo o escopo do Novo Testamento! Como comenta Thomas Edwards: “Quem se recusa a ouvir os apóstolos de Cristo recusa-se a ouvir o próprio Cristo e atrai sobre si seu descontentamento”[6]. Homens como Caio Fábio e sua corja, que tratam o que é revelado após Jesus como contaminado com o machismo, judaísmo ou o diabo estão, na verdade, negando a Deus. O destino dos que tal coisa fazem é certo e inequívoco, a menos que se arrependam de sua blasfêmia. Parafraseando o que o Dr. Jay E. Adams diz sobre Paul Tillich, durante uma das suas preleções na Conferência Fiel para Pastores e Líderes, em 1989: “Ler ou ouvir um sermão de Caio Fábio é ouvir o que o inimigo tem a dizer”[7].

__________________________

[1] FÁBIO, Caio. Pra eles, sou um herege, pois eles estão na bíblia, e eu estou em Jesus! Disponível em: . Acesso em: 3 jun. 2013. [2] FÁBIO, Caio. A Bíblia serve a Jesus, não Jesus à Bíblia! Disponível em: . Acesso em 5 jun. 2013. [3] FÁBIO, Caio. Caio, esse trecho da carta de Paulo não parece com Jesus. Por isso odeio a Jesus! Disponível em: . Acesso em 28 set. 2013. [4] MACHEN, Gresham. Cristianismo e Liberalismo. São Paulo, SP: Sheed Publicações, 2012, p. 43. [5] Ibidem, p. 68.
[6] EDWARDS, Thomas. A commentary on the first epistle to the Corinthians. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1903, p. 384. [7] Referência muito bem lembrada por Alan Rennê Alexandrino Lima, no Facebook.

***
Fonte: Blog do Yago Martins, via Ump da Quarta. Divulgação: Púlpito Cristão.

Column One: Israel and the new Munich

By CAROLINE B. GLICK

The Iranians have given no indication that they would be willing to suspend all uranium enrichment.

 

Catherine Ashton, Saeed Jalili during before talks Photo: REUTERS/Tolga Adanali/Pool

Speaking to the Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee on Wednesday, Strategic Affairs Minister Yuval Steinitz explained Israel’s concerns about the nuclear negotiations with Iran in Geneva. “We’re worried Geneva 2013 will end up like Munich 1938.”

Well, the time for worrying has passed. The statements from the Obama administration and the EU following the closing of the first round of talks all made clear that Geneva 2013 is Munich 1938.

The White House was unable to restrain its excitement at the prospect of a deal with the genocidal, nuclear weapons-developing mullocracy.

White House spokesman Jay Carney said, “The Iranian proposal was a new proposal with a level of seriousness and substance that we had not seen before.”

EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton, who led the six-power delegation that faced the Iranians, said that the talks were “the most detailed we have ever had, by a long way.”

Ashton also said that she is committed to making concessions to Iran as quickly as possible. In her words, “When we have been talking and in our discussions in these last days we know that we have to look for a first step, a confidencebuilding step, and we know we have to be clear about the last steps and to do that in the context of the objective overall.”

The stunning talks even included a one-on-one discussion between the chief US negotiator Undersecretary of State Wendy Sherman and the Iranians.

The only problem with all these exciting developments is that all the “serious Iranian proposals” would result in the same outcome: a nuclear-armed Iran. There was nothing in the Iranian proposals that could give anyone any reason whatsoever to believe that Iran is serious about stopping its nuclear weapons development program. Indeed, the only thing we learned this week is that like the Allied powers in 1938, the Obama administration and the Europeans have no stomach for a confrontation and are willing to dress up appeasement of a dangerous foe as “peace” and “progress.”

The Iranians have given no indication that they would be willing to suspend all uranium enrichment.

In his press conference after the current round of talks ended, Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif insisted that Iran has the right to continue enriching uranium. The Iranian offer appears to involve suspending its 20 percent uranium enrichment activities and sufficing with enriching uranium to 3.5%.

As everyone from US Sen. Mark Kirk to the Washington Post editorial board to US President Barack Obama’s former chief pointman on Iran’s nuclear program Gary Samore have stated over the past several days, given Iran’s current enrichment capabilities, Iran’s offer is meaningless.

Over the past year, Iran has installed a thousand sophisticated centrifuges at its nuclear installation at Natanz. These new centrifuges allow Iran to transform 3.5% enriched uranium to bomb-grade material (enriched to 90%) as quickly as its old centrifuges were capable of transforming 20% enriched uranium to weapons-grade levels. So today, 3.5% enrichment is as comfortable a jumping-off point for the Iranian weapons program as 20% enrichment was a few years ago. Iran’s “serious proposal” is a joke.

As Samore told The New York Times, “Ending production of 20% enriched uranium is not sufficient to prevent breakout, because Iran can produce nuclear weapons using low-enriched uranium and a large number of centrifuge machines.”

In a conference call with the Israel Project Wednesday, Samore explained, “What they’re offering is really no different than what we’ve heard from the previous government, from [Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad’s government for the last couple of years.... They continue to reject any physical limits on their enrichment capacity – meaning the number and type of centrifuge machines, the stockpile of enriched material that they have in country. And as far as I can tell, they have continued to reject closing any of their nuclear facilities... I haven’t heard of any agreement to halt work or to modify the heavy water research reactor that they’re building, and which may be close to operational.”

So the Iranians offered nothing this week that they didn’t offer in the past. And as a senior administration official told the Times, the Iranian program is already so advanced that for there to be time to negotiate a comprehensive agreement, Iran needs to first take steps to halt or even reverse its nuclear program.

And as Samore explained, none of the reports on the conclusion of this week’s round of talks indicated any Iranian willingness to take such actions.

The negotiations in Geneva bear an unsettling resemblance to the negotiations the West held with North Korea as it developed nuclear weapons. There, too, Western negotiators bragged about new, serious and unprecedented North Korean “concessions.”

Pyongyang used the talks to undermine Western resolve to block its nuclear progress.

Just as happened with North Korea, so with Iran, the appeasement-crazed press will bring us endless stories about new, serious negotiations documents that will “ensure the peace.”

The last of the stories will be published the day Iran tests its first atomic bomb.

Since the Iranians are making the same unserious offers they have been making for years, why are the Americans and the Europeans hailing the talks as a new beginning? Why is Ashton talking about confidence-building measures? Why are American commentators and senators talking about various steps the US could take to appease Iran? By midweek, talk was rife in Washington about the prospect of unfreezing some of the $50 billion Iranian funds that have been held in escrow in Western banks. Doing so, we were told, would reward the Iranians for being so “serious,” but it wouldn’t involve directly unraveling the sanctions regime.

All of this is happening because the American and Europeans have changed their game. The only serious development of this week is the revelation of their new game.

The Iranians remain committed to developing nuclear weapons. But the US and Europe have stopped even paying lip service to stopping them. Instead, the US and Europe aim to destroy domestic Western opposition to Iran’s nuclear program. This is the new American/European game plan. This is what stands behind all the nonsensical talk of “serious” Iranian proposals.

Before his reelection, Obama felt constrained to pretend that he was serious about preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons. He opposed but then grudgingly signed comprehensive sanctions passed overwhelmingly by both houses of Congress. He told AIPAC that he had Israel’s back.

But now that he’s no longer facing reelection, the jig is up. Obama’s new goal, which is enthusiastically supported by Ashton and her comrades in Brussels, is to use the new negotiations with Iran’s phony baloney “moderate” new president to give himself political cover to open the door to Iran acquiring nuclear bombs. Obama doesn’t want to prevent Iran from getting the bomb. He wants to insulate himself from criticism when it gets the bomb.

Not only do the White House’s lies about Iran’s new “level of seriousness” give Obama the maneuver room to pretend he’s acting responsibly, they trap Israel into inaction. After all, how could Israel possibly bomb Iran’s nuclear installations when Iran is negotiating so seriously, and is “this close” to making a groundbreaking agreement?

We shouldn’t be surprised by this state of affairs. Obama has never acted in good faith with Israel.

Take the latest news on Turkey, for example.

On Thursday, Washington Post columnist David Ignatius reported that last year NATO member Turkey gave Iranian intelligence the identities of up to 10 Iranian agents working for the Mossad after they met with their Israeli case officers in Turkey. Turkey’s action was a shocking betrayal of what was supposed to be a goal it shared with Israel and the US – preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Turkey willfully harmed Israeli efforts to achieve this goal by turning in 10 Israeli agents.

Rather than taking action against Turkey, or simply acknowledging that the actions of Prime Minister Recep Erdogan represented a fundamental shift in Turkey’s strategic outlook, Obama shrugged off Turkey’s betrayal. The US didn’t even protest Turkey’s despicable deed. Instead, as Ignatius noted, “Turkish-American relations continued warming last year to the point that Erdogan was among Obama’s key confidants.”

A few months after Turkey colluded with Iran against Israel, Obama coerced Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu into apologizing to Erdogan for Israel’s lawful maritime interdiction of the Mavi Marmara as it unlawfully sought to breach Israel’s blockade of the Hamas-controlled Gaza coastline.

No doubt, in making this concession Netanyahu believed that he would win Obama’s goodwill. In a similar fashion, in the hope of appeasing Obama, Netanyahu has made concession after concession to the Palestinians – from drastically downgrading Jewish property rights in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem to releasing Palestinian murderers from prison.

Yet in all of these cases, Obama has pocketed Israel’s concessions and demanded more concessions.

In all these cases, Obama’s allies have used the concessions to present a picture of Israel as both an ungrateful and unhelpful ally, and as a weakling. And in the meantime, Obama has facilitated EU sanctions against Israel. He has leaked top secret Israeli intelligence operations to the media. He has repeatedly threatened to abandon Israel at the UN Security Council. He has supported the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

And now he is involved in negotiations with Iran that will necessarily lead to Iran’s emergence as a nuclear power.

From Netanyahu’s repeated declarations that Israel will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, it is unclear whether he realizes what is going on. More than anything else, those statements represent an attempt to negotiate with Obama. Netanyahu is still trying to win Obama over.

If there was ever an argument to be made in favor of Netanyahu’s pleading, their time is long past. In nothing else, the obscene diplomatic theater in Geneva this week made that clear.

Israel is alone. We have no diplomatic option.

No matter what Israel says, no matter what it does, neither the US nor any other Western power is ever going to be convinced to take the only step that would set back Iran’s nuclear program – bombing its nuclear installations. No matter what, neither Obama nor any European leader will ever support an Israeli military strike on Iran’s nuclear installations.

Israel’s back is to the wall. That is the meaning of the talks in Geneva. If we aren’t prepared to live with a nuclear-armed Iran, we have to stop talking and start acting. And we need to prepare for the diplomatic hell that will break loose thereafter.

Articles: Is Obama Creating a Martial-law-ready Military?

Articles: Is Obama Creating a Martial-law-ready Military?

John McAfee predicts hackers will empty Obamacare enrollees' bank accounts | WashingtonExaminer.com

John McAfee predicts hackers will empty Obamacare enrollees' bank accounts | WashingtonExaminer.com

Misunderstandings About Salvation - Bible Qs and As

Reblogged from gracethrufaith.com/ask-a-bible-teacher 

• Salvation

Q. Last week when I was reading thru the Bible, I got to a couple of rather bone-chilling verses and I’d like to get your 2 cents worth on it:
Mat 7:21-23  “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.   Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?  And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.”

I don’t know if I can think anything more frightening than come final judgment day if the LORD tells me “depart from me I never knew you”.  After giving it some thought I’ve come to the conclusion that just merely accepting Christ and that He died for my sins is NOT sufficient. I don’t mean that works are required except for ONE thing in addition to having faith—REPENT. The forces of darkness know who Jesus is and they believe in Him and know that thru Christ the sins of the people are forgiven. The difference is that they never had any intention of repenting. I don’t want to sound doom and gloom but this is starting to bother me a bit, which I assume is a good thing because that means the Holy Spirit is doing some conviction in my heart. But, what do you understand these passages to mean?
A. Before looking at Matt. 7:21 let’s to go to the verses that most clearly explain God’s will where our salvation is concerned.  John 6:28-29 tells that the work the Father requires of us is to believe in the One He has sent. And John 6:40 says, “For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.” And Ephesians 1:13-14 tells us we were included in Christ when we heard the gospel of our salvation and believed it. At that time we were given the seal of the Holy Spirit as a deposit guaranteeing our salvation. There’s no mention of any other requirement in these or any other statement concerning our salvation.  Don’t take my word for this.  Check Matt. 7:7-8, John 3:16, John 6:38-40, Romans 10:9, Romans 10:13, 2 Cor. 1:21-22, Titus 3:4-7 to be sure.
Add to this the fact that the Greek word translated repent simply means to change one’s mind.  Before you can be saved, you have to change your mind about your spiritual condition and agree that you’re a sinner in need of a Savior. When the Bible says repent and be baptized, as in Acts 2:38, it doesn’t mean to change our behavior to prove we’re worthy of salvation, it means to change our minds and admit we need a savior.
In Matt. 7:21-23 Jesus was finishing up a teaching about false prophets that begins in Matt. 7:15.  He said just because they call Him Lord does not mean they will enter the Kingdom even if they claim to have done miracles in His name.  He will call them evil doers and deny ever knowing them.  These verses were not intended for general application.  They pertain to the false prophets among us.
As for the oft misquoted James 2:19, what it really says is, “You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.” There’s no mention of Jesus, or what it takes to be saved. James is arguing that saving faith will eventually manifest itself in the desire to help others. The reason the demons tremble is that while they know there’s only one God, they haven’t been willing to humble themselves and admit that they need a Savior. Therefore they have only His judgment to look forward to.
Over and over again, the Bible says that belief in the Lord’s atoning death and accepting it in faith as payment for our sins is the only requirement for salvation. Our faith in that is what’s credited to us as righteousness. (Romans 4:5)