Great Deception Is Settling In (Pastor Charles Lawson)

Heresies: Montanism.

Note of the author: To understand the modern heretical movements known under different names such as Dominionism,  Latter Rain, the Seven Mountains, the New Apostolic Reformation, Kansas City Prophets, International House of Prayer, et al, it helps to examine the root out of which they grew and morphed into a gigantic tree that covers all the earth as Peter Wagner the "godfather" ( now deceased) described the reach of the branch. Such was the problem faced by the 2 Century chuch fathers under the false doctrine promoted by a man named Montanus. Here is a short exposé of the Montanist heresy. (To read the previous post on the warped theology of Peter Wagner, the Ruling Apostle of the New Reformation click HERE.
                       --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reposted from polemicsreport.com

31 Aug, 2016  in Heresies / Uncategorized by JD Hall

---

Montanism is a 2nd Century heresy, still prevalent today, named after its founder, Montanus. Those who engage in the Montanism heresy sometimes speak of it as “The New Prophecy.” Montanists hold to most orthodox doctrines in their most generic forms (except the Sufficency of Scripture), but believe in new prophecies that are outside of Scripture. Montanus and his followers believed that the Holy Spirit, it He were active in the life of believers, would continually give them new prophecies, even after the closing of the Biblical canon.

Like modern-day charismaticism, many of Montanist prophecies were vague and nebulous in nature, and categorizing them as either true or false were difficult. However, because of the eventual testing of such claims of direct, divine revelation, the first recorded notion of “false prophecy” relating to the Montanists was in 193, in an anonymous letter written about Montanism in Galatia. Eventually, the church recognized Montanism as a heresy in Carthage in 203, although some Church leaders – like Tertullian – defended the sect. Eusebius spoke of Montanus as thus:

And he [Montanus] became beside himself, and being suddenly in a sort of frenzy and ecstasy, he raved, and began to babble and utter strange things, prophesying in a manner contrary to the constant custom of the Church handed down by tradition from the beginning.1

The comparison to modern charismaticism cannot be overstated. Modern practitioners of the Montanist heresy include practicing Continuationists, often Word-Faith ministers, and the New Apostolic Reformation. Individual Montanists include Kenneth Copeland, Mike Bickle, Beth Moore, Sarah Young and Ronnie Floyd.

1.  Eusebius, “16”, Ecclesiastical History, Book 5.

NAR "APOSTLE" C. PETER WAGNER AND HIS DOMINION MANDATE

By Ken Silva pastor-teacher on Oct 9, 2011 in Current Issues, Features, New Apostolic Reformation

By Apprising Ministries special correspondent Chrystal Whitt of Slaughter of the Sheep

C. Peter Wagner, founder of the New Apostolic Reformation and the Wagner Leadership Institute, has introduced a heresy to the church that is growing at an alarming rate.  Whereas before, the proponents of the NAR were looked at as being on the fringe of Charismania, they have now swiftly gained inroads into churches, and even politics, and are now beginning to go mainstream.  But, Wagner didn’t do this alone.  Wagner had many self-serving false prophets and false apostles who were more than willing to help him spread this poison.
Wagner’s plan for the church can be summed up in two words… “Dominion Mandate.”  In Wagner’s own words, this mandate consists of:

“My point is that we’re in the second apostolic age, and, and, the government of the church must be in place with apostles and prophets.  Which brings us to the ‘Dominion Mandate.’  Now, first of all, I want to point out two words… dominion and mandate.”
(C. Peter Wagner.  Freedom!  Freedom!  Freedom! conference.  Sonrise Chapel, Everett, Washington.  November 2-4, 2006.)

These apostles and prophets are a group of men and women who form the elite inner circle of the NAR; the “super christians” who are so “holy,” they will one day achieve immortality.

Gaining immortality while in sinful flesh would be a magnificent feat, to say the least.  But how do the NAR super apostles propose to do this?  Well, if you look at it Scripturally, there is only one way.  Only diety, angels, or demons, etc., are immortal.  Since we know the NAR super apostles aren’t and never will be literal angels or demons, that leads to only one more possible way.  They must be gods, or little gods.  Sound familiar?  The little god doctrine may not be affirmed publicly by all of the NAR (as of yet), but the concept and doctrine is there.  It’s the same lie that goes all the way back to Eden when the serpent tempted Eve by saying:

Genesis 3:4-5:
4 And the serpent said to the woman, “You surely shall not die!
5 “For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

The same lie that tempted man and effectively caused him to fall in the beginning still works today.  The serpent is slick, sure, but this is still the same old lie he has always used.  Why change your tactics when the old one still works so well?

So, how do you become an apostle or prophet in the NAR?  You have to be confirmed as an apostle or prophet by…. the NAR’s apostles and prophets.  Only they can recognize you as such.  This elitism then divides the church into the “haves” and “have nots.”  Those who have the power and those who don’t.  The ”have nots” in the church must submit to the authority of the “haves” – the elite ones, the super christians – the apostles and prophets.
The following quote from Wagner is taken from an article written by Mike Oppenheimer of Let Us Reason Ministries:

Wagner states, “The New Apostolic Reformation is an extraordinary work of God at the close of the twentieth century that is, to a significant extent, changing the shape of Protestant Christianity around the world,” Wagner explains. “For almost five hundred years, Christian churches have largely functioned within traditional denominational structures of one kind or another…
“The apostles bring spiritual government to the pastors of the city so that the pastors of the city can do the job that God has given them in a much more effective way. The only thing is that the pastors of the city have to recognize the existence of apostles and be willing to acknowledge their governmental role. This hasn’t happened too much yet.”
“The only way this can possibly play itself out would be by the other people in the city recognizing that the apostle will add value to their own ministry. If this does not happen, change will not occur,” explains Wagner.
“The whole idea of recognizing the gift and role of an apostle is a really big change in the way we see church. The one thing that has surprised me is the lack of opposition to this. I haven’t seen an awful lot of criticism or opposition to it as has developed over other issues.” (Arise Magazine Article: New Apostolic Reformation, Posted September 1, 2000)  (Source)

Wagner hasn’t seen a lot of opposition to this?  That’s because sheep are willingly being led to the slaughter.

Think of the implications of this.  Those of you who read this blog know the importance the Scriptures place on discernment.  What would it be like if the NAR took over the entire church at large?  Suppose a false prophet or apostle gives a supposed word from God – the discerning church would have no choice but to reject it.  However, there is no room for that in Wagner’s “Dominion Mandate,” because the church has to submit to the apostles and prophets without question.  If that sounds like a cult, that’s because it is.

“The word mandate, you gotta understand, mandate means an authoritative order or command.  It doesn’t mean a good idea, it doesn’t mean a suggestion; it means an authoritative order.  Dominion has to do with control.  Dominion has to do with rulership.  Dominion has to do with authority and subduing, and it relates to society…..”
(C. Peter Wagner.  Freedom!  Freedom!  Freedom! conference.  Sonrise Chapel, Everett, Washington.  November 2-4, 2006.)

Now, what is all of this going to accomplish?  According to the NAR, it is to bring about Christ’s second coming.  According to latter rain theology, these super apostles and prophets will become immortal, will subdue the earth through the seven mountain mandate, or the seven spheres of influence, will conquer the enemies of God (anyone who opposes the NAR) through spiritual mapping/spiritual warfare, and will eventually take over the earth.  Once the earth has been completely conquered, then Jesus can come.  Until then, He is being held in Heaven.  Once man perfects this world, Jesus can come and man will lay the earth at His feet.  Take out your magic eraser and eradicate the book of Revelation, Daniel, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah… in fact, erase it all.  You can’t hold to any of it anyway if you follow this doctrine.

This is a warning that I am giving more loudly and clearly than any I’ve ever given.  Keep your eyes and ears open!  This thing has not only gained traction, but is spreading like a cancer.  Watch and pray, friends.  It’s getting darker by the minute!

To hear C. Peter Wagner in his own words, please watch the video below.

Why Muslim Dr. Nabeel Qureshi Converted to Christianity

2016 10 23 John Haller’s Prophecy Update “Under Attack”

Jack Hibbs interviews Bill Salus regarding Psalm 83 Part 1

Sins of the Fathers, Nepotism, and Apostasy in the Church Commentary by Roger Oakland

Reposted from

Understand The Times International: Roger Oakland Ministries
www.understandthetimes.org
1.800.689.1888

For printer friendly version, please click here
 

There is an obvious pattern observed from a brief study of genealogies found in the Old Testament. When a father follows God and leads the people, overseeing in the right direction, there is absolutely no guarantee this virtue will carry over to the next generation. In other words, the saying “he is a chip off the old block” is not always the pattern we find when it comes to biblical history. 

While there are many examples we could use to lay the foundation for this “father-son” relationship, I will quote God’s word regarding His promises that is found in 1 Kings chapter 9. We read:

And it came to pass, when Solomon had finished the building of the house of the LORD, and the king's house, and all Solomon's desire which he was pleased to do, that the LORD appeared to Solomon the second time, as he had appeared unto him at Gibeon. And the LORD said unto him, I have heard thy prayer and thy supplication, that thou hast made before me: I have hallowed this house, which thou hast built, to put my name there forever; and mine eyes and mine heart shall be there perpetually. And if thou wilt walk before me, as David thy father walked, in integrity of heart, and in uprightness, to do according to all that I have commanded thee, and wilt keep my statutes and my judgments: Then I will establish the throne of thy kingdom upon Israel forever, as I promised to David thy father, saying, there shall not fail thee a man upon the throne of Israel. But if ye shall at all turn from following me, ye or your children, and will not keep my commandments and my statutes which I have set before you, but go and serve other gods, and worship them: Then will I cut off Israel out of the land which I have given them; and this house, which I have hallowed for my name, will I cast out of my sight; and Israel shall be a proverb and a byword among all people. [1]

God’s warning to Solomon cannot be misunderstood. The Lord God made it clear in advance to Solomon what would happen if he strayed away from his father David’s legacy and worship the gods. While the Bible reveals that David had his own faults, he was “a man after God’s own heart” as the Bible describes. Unfortunately, Solomon, the son, while a wise man, disobeyed and rebelled.

There is another way of understanding this truth that is very simple. God stated that if a son follows his father, and the father follows God and His Word, then he will continue to be blessed. As the Scriptures clearly reveal, this was not what happened in Solomon’s life. He and the children of Israel suffered the consequences as they rebelled against God and ended up under judgment.

While this one example features the point I am trying to make in this commentary, a broader study of the Bible reveals the father-son rebellion pattern in repetitive detail. This happened over and over again, generation after generation. The lesson learned should be easily transferred to what often happens in the church today.

 

Nepotism

Another pattern found in the Bible equally as revealing is in regard to father-son relationships and relating to a term called nepotism. According to one definition, nepotism is defined as: “patronage bestowed or favoritism shown on the basis of a family relationship, as in business and politics.” [2]

 

However, nepotism is not limited to business and politics. It is more widely understood when describing spiritual leaders, both in the past and the present. Think of the number of mega-church pastors who have turned over the leadership of their churches in their golden years to their sons. 

According to the Bible, ministry is a calling and cannot be inherited based on genetics. In fact, passing the ministry down to keep the family business intact, almost always proves to be a mistake. Here are some examples of Christian-leader fathers whose sons or son-in-laws have received the baton of ministry and have benefited from their fathers’ names and successes to build their own. Do your research and see whether these sons are following biblical Christianity or going down a slippery slope of apostasy and sadly taking many of their followers with them. Take some time and think about what I am saying. Two questions that should be asked: Did the fathers equip their sons properly through example and in the Word to have godly discernment and be aware of spiritual deception in the last days? Or, as many of these fathers are remaining silent today, were they silent on important issues then too?

·    Charles Stanley (father) and Andy Stanley (son) [3]

·    Jim Bakker (father) and Jay Bakker (son) [4]

·    Chuck Smith (father-in-law) and Brian Brodersen (son-in-law) [5]

·    Raul Reis (father) and Ryan Reis (son) [6]

·    Lee Strobel (father) and Kyle Strobel (son) [7]

·    Dr. Richard DeHaan (grandfather) and Mart DeHaan (grandson) [8]

The Slippery Slope

While the gospel found clearly in the Scriptures must remain biblically based or it is no longer the gospel, when the younger postmodern generation inherits the pulpit from their fathers who have been senior pastors or prominent leaders for years, all of this can change for the worse. 

If you haven’t noticed what is happening, then here are some of the symptoms:

·    Truth becomes relative while mysticism opens the door to eastern spirituality.

·    There is ecumenical unity with Rome at any cost replacing the biblical theme that Jesus Christ is the narrow way and the only way to salvation. 

·    Instead of the Bible remaining the Word of God, the Bible is replaced by the ideas of men who critique the Bible and look for ways to grow the church numerically.

·    Bible prophetic warnings that once warned about church apostasy are replaced by the idea that all religions contain truth and that there are many ways to God.  

·    When worship becomes noise for the sake of sensual stimulation, the Word of God has been forgotten and often totally ignored.

This description of the pathway to apostasy could be developed much further. For now, hopefully you will recognize what is happening to the present-day church. If you are wondering why I am writing this, there is a simple explanation. Someone has to stand up like the prophets of old and warn the sheep. Those who are doing this are scattered and few. Today, those who should be warning remain in their tight-knit fellowships refusing to speak out for fear of rocking the boat or losing numbers. Perhaps the ones who seem to say the least are the ones who have passed on the baton to their own sons.

Thus the reason for this commentary: “The Sins of the Fathers, Nepotism, and Apostasy in the Church.” Read it and share it with someone. Perhaps some will wake up!

 

[1] I Kings 9: 1-7

[2] http://www.dictionary.com/browse/nepotism

[3] http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/blog/?p=21421; http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/blog/?p=21418

[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbVAVy5pWE0.  

[5] http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/blog/?p=21110

[6] http://www.understandthetimes.org/inthenews/1112_mna.shtml

[7] http://www.metamorpha.com/

[8] http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/blog/?p=10800.

OSAS And John 5 - Biblical Qs & As

Reposted from  gracethrufaith.com

Thursday, September 21st, 2006

• Healing
• Once Saved Always Saved
• Salvation

Q. I’ve heard John 5:1-14 used as an argument against OSAS. It’s talking about Jesus healing the lame man. Jesus said in the second part of verse 14, “See, you have been made well. Sin no more, lest a worse thing come upon you.” What did he mean,”lest a worse thing come upon you.”

A. John’s gospel is unique. It’s single purpose is to demonstrate that Jesus is the Son of God. The healing at the Pool of Bethesda (John 5:1-14) is one of only seven miracles in John’s Gospel. Each one was chosen to illustrate an important point related to the Lord’s divinity.

According to tradition, angels periodically stirred up the waters of the Pool of Bethesda. When that happened, the first one in the pool would be healed of whatever disease he or she had. Many disabled people were lying there waiting for the waters to be stirred up. Jesus could have healed them all, but picked just one. He used him to represent Israel in an example that illustrates the poverty of the Law and the need for a Savior.

Because he was crippled, the man couldn’t get into the water to be healed when it was stirred up, but if he could have gotten to the water he wouldn’t have needed the healing. It was a Catch 22. He needed someone to heal him. Likewise, the Israelites were futilely trying to keep the Law to save themselves from their sins, but if they could keep the Law they wouldn’t have needed to be saved. They were also in a Catch 22. They needed someone to save them.

Jesus healed this man to show Israel that if they wanted to be saved, He was willing to be their Savior. By telling him to stop sinning lest something worse should happen he was in effect saying to Israel, “Stop trying to save yourselves and receive your Savior lest you wind up in hell forever.”

Although the man was truly crippled and obviously healed, Jesus was using him to act out a parable. There’s no evidence anywhere to suggest a connection between the man’s sins and his disability, and such a stern warning with its implied threat was totally out of character for the Lord, who came to seek and to save what was lost. (Luke 19:10)

Using this verse as an argument against eternal security not only violates its intent, but it imposes impossible conditions upon believers resulting the same Catch 22. If we could keep our salvation, we could have earned it and wouldn’t need a Savior.

It also contradicts several of the Lord’s clear promises, such as John 10:28, “I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand.”

2016 10 16 John Haller's Prophecy Update "Yea, It's Converging"

Column One: From Yemen to Turtle Bay - Caroline Glick

Reblogged from jpost.com
Iran’s game is clear enough. It wishes to replace the US as the regional hegemon, at the US’s expense.

Sana’a, Yemen. (photo credit:Wikimedia Commons) 

Off the coast of Yemen and at the UN Security Council we are seeing the strategic endgame of Barack Obama’s administration. And it isn’t pretty.

Since Sunday, Iran’s Houthi proxies in Yemen have attacked US naval craft three times in the Bab al-Mandab, the narrow straits at the mouth of the Red Sea. The Bab al-Mandab controls maritime traffic in the Red Sea, and ultimately controls the Suez Canal.

Be the first to know - Join our Facebook page.

Whether the Iranians directed these assaults or simply green-lighted them is really beside the point. The point is that these are Iranian strikes on the US. The Houthis would never have exposed themselves to US military retaliation if they hadn’t been ordered to do so by their Iranian overlords.

The question is why has Iran chosen to open up an assault on the US? The simple answer is that Iran has challenged US power at the mouth of the Red Sea because it believes that doing so advances its strategic aims in the region.

Iran’s game is clear enough. It wishes to replace the US as the regional hegemon, at the US’s expense.

Since Obama entered office nearly eight years ago, Iran’s record in advancing its aims has been one of uninterrupted success.

Iran used the US withdrawal from Iraq as a means to exert its full control over the Iraqi government. It has used Obama’s strategic vertigo in Syria as a means to exert full control over the Assad regime and undertake the demographic transformation of Syria from a Sunni majority state to a Shi’ite plurality state.

In both cases, rather than oppose Iran’s power grabs, the Obama administration has welcomed them. As far as Obama is concerned, Iran is a partner, not an adversary.

Since like the US, Iran opposes al-Qaida and ISIS, Obama argues that the US has nothing to fear from the fact that Iranian-controlled Shiite militias are running the US-trained Iraqi military.

So, too, he has made clear that the US is content to stand by as the mullahs become the face of Syria.

In Yemen, the US position has been more ambivalent. In late 2014, Houthi rebel forces took over the capital city of Sanaa. In March 2015, the Saudis led a Sunni campaign to overthrow the Houthi government. In a bid to secure Saudi support for the nuclear agreement it was negotiating with the Iranians, the Obama administration agreed to support the Saudi campaign. To this end, the US military has provided intelligence, command and control guidance, and armaments to the Saudis.

Iran’s decision to openly assault US targets then amounts to a gamble on Tehran’s part that in the twilight of the Obama administration, the time is ripe to move in for the kill in Yemen. The Iranians are betting that at this point, with just three months to go in the White House, Obama will abandon the Saudis, and so transfer control over Arab oil to Iran.

For with the Strait of Hormuz on the one hand, and the Bab al-Mandab on the other, Iran will exercise effective control over all maritime oil flows from the Arab world.

It’s not a bad bet for the Iranians, given Obama’s consistent strategy in the Middle East.

Obama has never discussed that strategy.

Indeed, he has deliberately concealed it. But to understand the game he has been playing all along, the only thing you need to do listen to his foreign policy soul mate.

According to a New York Times profile published in May, Obama’s deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes is the president’s alter ego. The two men’s minds have “melded.”

Rhodes’s first foreign policy position came in the course of his work for former congressman Lee Hamilton.

In 2006, then-president George W. Bush appointed former secretary of state James Baker and Hamilton to lead the Iraq Study Group. Bush tasked the group with offering a new strategy for winning the war in Iraq. The group released its report in late 2006.

The Iraq Study Group’s report contained two basic recommendations. First, it called for the administration to abandon Iraq to the Iranians.

The group argued that due to Iran’s opposition to al-Qaida, the Iranians would fight al-Qaida for the US.

The report’s second recommendation related to Israel. Baker, Hamilton and their colleagues argued that after turning Iraq over to Iran, the US would have to appease its Sunni allies.

The US, the Iraq Study Group report argued, should simultaneously placate the Sunnis and convince the Iranians of its sincerity by sticking it to Israel. To this end, the US should pressure Israel to give the Golan Heights to Syria and give Judea and Samaria to the PLO.

Bush rejected the Iraq Study Group report. Instead he opted to win the war in Iraq by adopting the surge counterinsurgency strategy.

But once Bush was gone, and Rhodes’s intellectual twin replaced him, the Iraq Study Group recommendations became the unstated US strategy in the Middle East.

After taking office, Obama insisted that the US’s only enemy was al-Qaida. In 2014, Obama grudgingly expanded the list to include ISIS.

Obama has consistently justified empowering Iran in Iraq and Syria on the basis of this narrow definition of US enemies. Since Iran is also opposed to ISIS and al-Qaida, the US can leave the job of defeating them both to the Iranians, he has argued.

Obviously, Iran won’t do the US’s dirty work for free. So Obama has paid the mullahs off by giving them an open road to nuclear weapons through his nuclear deal, by abandoning sanctions against them, and by turning his back on their ballistic missile development.

Obama has also said nothing about the atrocities that Iranian-controlled militia have carried out against Sunnis in Iraq and has stopped operations against Hezbollah.

As for Israel, since his first days in office, Obama has been advancing the Iraq Study Group’s recommendations. His consistent, and ever escalating condemnations of Israel, his repeated moves to pick fights with Jerusalem are all of a piece with the group’s recommended course of action. And there is every reason to believe that Obama intends to make good on his threats to cause an open rupture in the US alliance with Israel in his final days in office.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s phone call with Secretary of State John Kerry on Saturday night made this clear enough. In the course of their conversation, Netanyahu reportedly asked Kerry if Obama intended to enable an anti-Israel resolution to pass in the UN Security Council after the presidential election next month. By refusing to rule out the possibility, Kerry all but admitted that this is in fact Obama’s intention.

And this brings us back to Iran’s assaults on US ships along the coast of Yemen.

Early on Sunday morning, the US responded to the Houthi/Iranian missile assaults by attacking three radar stations in Houthi-controlled territory. The nature of the US moves gives credence to the fear that the US will surrender Yemen to Iran.

This is so for three reasons. First, the administration did not allow the USS Mason destroyer to respond to the sources of the missile attack against it immediately. Instead, the response was delayed until Obama himself could determine how best to “send a message.”

That is, he denied US forces the right to defend themselves.

Second, it is far from clear that destroying the radar stations will inhibit the Houthis/Iranians.

It is not apparent that radar stations are necessary for them to continue to assault US naval craft operating in the area.

Finally, the State Department responded to the attack by reaching out to the Houthis. In other words, the administration is continuing to view the Iranian proxy is a legitimate actor rather than an enemy despite its unprovoked missile assaults on the US Navy.

Then there is the New York Times’ position on Yemen.

The Times has repeatedly allowed the administration to use it as an advocate of policies the administration itself wishes to adopt. Last week for instance, the Times called for the US to turn on Israel at the Security Council.

On Tuesday, the Times published an editorial calling for the administration to end its military support for the Saudi campaign against the Houthis/Iran in Yemen.

Whereas the Iranian strategy makes sense, Obama’s strategy is nothing less than disastrous.

Although the Iraq Study Group, like Obama, is right that Iran also opposes ISIS, and to a degree, al-Qaida, they both ignored the hard reality that Iran also views the US as its enemy. Indeed, the regime’s entire identity is tied up in its hatred for the US and its strategic aim of destroying America.

Obama is not the only US president who has sought to convince the Iranians to abandon their hatred for America. Every president since 1979 has tried to convince the mullahs to abandon their hostility. And just like all of his predecessors, Obama has failed to convince them.

What distinguishes Obama from his predecessors is that he has based US policy on a deliberate denial of the basic reality of Iranian hostility. Not surprisingly, the Iranians have returned his favor by escalating their aggression against America.

The worst part about Obama’s strategy is that it is far from clear that his successor will be able to improve the situation.

If Hillary Clinton succeeds him, his successor is unlikely to even try. Not only has Clinton embraced Obama’s policies toward Iran.

Her senior advisers are almost all Obama administration alumni. Wendy Sherman, the leading candidate to serve as her secretary of state, was Obama’s chief negotiator with the Iranians.

If Donald Trump triumphs next month, assuming he wishes to reassert US power in the region, he won’t have an easy time undoing the damage that Obama has caused.

Time has not stood still as the US has engaged in strategic dementia. Not only has Iran been massively empowered, Russia has entered the Middle East as a strategic spoiler.

Moreover, since 2001, the US has spent more than a trillion dollars on its failed wars in the Middle East. That investment came in lieu of spending on weapons development. Today Russia’s S-400 anti-aircraft missiles in Syria reportedly neutralize the US’s air force.

US naval craft in the Bab al-Mandab have little means to defend themselves against missile strikes.

The US’s trillion-dollar investment in the F-35 fighter jet has tethered its air wings to a plane that has yet to prove its capabilities, and may never live up to expectations.

Israel is justifiably worried about the implications of Obama’s intention to harm it at the UN.

But the harm Israel will absorb at the UN is nothing in comparison to the long-term damage that Obama’s embrace of the Iraq Study Group’s disastrous strategic framework has and will continue to cause Israel, the US and the entire Middle East.

www.CarolineGlick.com

2016 10 09 John Haller's Prophecy Update "Judgment is Coming"

God's Unrelenting Support (Pastor Charles Lawson)

Mid-East Prophecy Update - J.D. Farag 10 2 2016

"Getting" it - The Omega Letter - Jack Kinsella

Republished from omegaletter.com
In Defense of the Faith
Thursday, June 16, 2011 Jack Kinsella - Omega Letter Editor
 
I cannot recall a time when I ever really disbelieved in God. Reaching way back into the dim recesses, I thought of God as my “Big Friend” – I remember talking to Him from my earliest memories. As I grew older, I put God away, but I don’t think I ever doubted He was real.
That doesn’t mean that I was saved back then – far from it. I could never convince myself that God wasn’t real, but that doesn’t mean I didn’t try. I just did what human beings have done since the Fall:

“And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.” (Genesis 3:8)

Adam and Eve believed in God – heck, they used to walk with Him in the cool of the evening, according to the rabbinical sages. And in a sense, so did I. As a boy pretending to “drive” my little red wagon, I was never alone – I always had Him to talk to.
When I would be afraid at night, I would talk with Him until I fell asleep. I didn’t know His Name – to me He was just ‘God’ but in my innocence, I walked with Him and He walked with me.

I don’t know why my earliest memories seem so vivid and clear; I suspect it is because I lost my mother to cancer when I was ten. Because of that, those memories are the ones I most cherish – they are the ones I pull out most often.

But many of them are as clear to me today as they ever were. By the time I was ten, I had already followed Adam and Eve’s example of hiding from God, but I remember relying heavily on the knowledge that she was still alive in Heaven forevermore.

I counted on God to take care of her, so it wasn’t as if I didn’t believe He existed. But I wasn’t saved. And by then, I needed saving – I was well past the age of accountability, knowing right from wrong and doing wrong, eyes wide open.

I couldn’t face God anymore, so I learned to put Him out of my mind, except in times of danger, when I might invoke His Name – but I really didn’t know Him – that little boy was all grown up. I put Him on the same mental shelf as Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, knowing full well He didn’t belong there.

I’d been educated in a Catholic school and figured that I knew what it took to be saved and it seemed to me to be both way too hard and absolutely no fun.
I had a lot of sinning to do and I really didn’t want Him watching.
By the time I actually heard the Gospel for the first time, I was about twenty-six -- and about the only part of the Bible that seem to apply to me was Job 20:11-14:

“His bones are full of the sin of his youth, which shall lie down with him in the dust. Though wickedness be sweet in his mouth, though he hide it under his tongue; Though he spare it, and forsake it not; but keep it still within his mouth: Yet his meat in his bowels is turned, it is the gall of asps within him.”

There’s more, but you get the idea. As I said, I knew that God is, but I hid from Him because I had a lot of sinning planned and didn’t want Him to get in the way. But sin has a way of taking you further than you want to go and keeping you there longer than you wanted to stay.

It starts out sweetness to the mouth, but “the gall of asps” inside. Full to the brim with asp gall, I heard the Gospel one Wednesday night at a little one room church, but I didn’t go up at the altar call.

I couldn’t – too much asp gall. But I couldn’t put the message out of my mind the way I usually did. That night, the enemy overplayed his hand. I woke up in my bedroom, which was cold as ice.

My breath frosted as I breathed and I sensed a malevolent presence in the room. It was terrifying. Maybe it was a dream. I don’t know. But they had given me a little pocket New Testament that night at church which I had put on the nightstand unopened and unread after coming home.

I reached over and as I touched it, I felt a comforting Presence. I put the New Testament under my pillow and went to sleep. Next morning, when I realized what had happened, I hit my knees and turned my life over to Jesus.

I was right. It was hard. But I had met the Enemy that night, and having met the Enemy, I knew whose side I wanted to be on. Everybody told me about their transformation when they got saved.

I wanted to be transformed, too!

I quit smoking, drinking and swearing. I guarded my thoughts 24 hours a day. I went to church every time the doors were open, hung out only with Christians, studied the Bible and prayed constantly.

It was exhausting! It lasted for three, maybe four months – a period of ongoing, constant battle -- me against myself. I wanted to be good, but it was just so hard . . .
I was cleaning my car when I found a cigarette under the seat. I looked at it, was about to toss it, but I lighted it instead.

Next morning, when I woke up, there were my cigarettes on the nightstand and a half-bottle of Jack Daniels in the kitchen, and memories of the night before that still haunt me to this day.

What in the world happened? I was a saved Christian! How could I have let something like this overtake me? I was ashamed.

I was so ashamed I stopped going to church. I was too ashamed to read my Bible. As was my habit, I hid from God and went right back into the lifestyle I lived before I got saved.
I wanted to be transformed -- and so I was.

Months turned into years and I never cracked a Bible, spent any time in prayer . . . I made new friends, I lived more or less the same life I had always lived before Christ. I felt an emptiness, but with a little effort, I could work around the void.

People who knew me peripherally said I was backslidden; those that knew me well concluded that I had never been saved at all. I sometimes wondered, myself.

“Who shall also confirm you unto the end, that ye may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (1^st Corinthians 1:8)

If turning one’s life and will over to Christ, asking Him to save me from my sins and trusting that He is able to preserve me blameless isn’t enough, then maybe they were right.
One thing I was sure of, though. If trusting in Jesus wasn’t enough, I was done for. So why even try?

Hebrews 6:6 seems to concur, saying that having been once saved and then fallen away, it is impossible to renew me to repentance. There seems no way to get to anywhere from here

I was saved, but fell right back into sin and stayed there for years before the Lord picked me back up and restored me to fellowship.
Let’s recap. But open up a Bible to Romans Chapter seven and follow along as we do. I was guiltless, once. Then I learned the difference between right and wrong and knew I was a sinner. (Romans 7:9)

Then I heard the Gospel given to men that they might have life and have it more abundantly. I eagerly embraced it, but found it impossible to live up to. Soon, that which I expected to bring me life, seemed to serve primarily as confirmation of my doom (Romans 7:10)

What happened? I expected to be transformed into a sinless Christian. My expectations let me down, I felt deceived and it practically killed my Christian witness. (Romans 7:11)
Was that the reason why I suddenly (and seemingly permanently) bolted from the faith? Was it because Jesus expected me to be transformed into someone holy and righteous and good? (Romans 7:12)

Was what is good to others all around me in church made into death for me? All around me were other happy, fresh-faced Christians – but the harder I tried to be like them, the more miserable it made me until I just threw up my hands in despair. (Romans 7:13)
I know the Bible says I was transformed spiritually, but I felt just as carnal as I ever was. (Romans 7:14)

For awhile, I just ignored it, because I wanted to be good, but no matter what, I just kept going back to the same old habits. (Romans 7:15)

It isn’t that I didn’t know I was a sinner before – that’s why I turned my life over to Christ in the first place. But the sinner part didn’t go away – I knew what I thought I should do, but I just couldn’t find it in myself to do it.

The harder I tried, the bigger I fell. (Romans 7:18-22)
I was in a constant state of war with myself, like the cartoon of the guy with an angel on one shoulder and a devil on the other – my mind wanting to go one way, with my body going the other.

I was in a truly wretched state! (Romans 19-24) I was trusting in my ability, not in His faithfulness.

All of us Christians find ourselves in similarly wretched states at one time or another. Not everybody’s “wretched state” is the same – some of us are bigger gluttons for punishment than others – but we’ve all struggled with our worthiness and the efficacy of our salvation.
If you followed along in Romans you saw that there was nothing about my own Christian struggles that are unique – the Apostle Paul outlined them point by point some twenty centuries before I had them.

I had a totally different column in mind when I sat down this morning, so I can only assume that there is someone in our fellowship that is really struggling with this issue.
The Lord is a real Person, and as a unique and real Person, His relationship with each of us is unique and personal. WE are unique – our struggles are not. It is important to understand the difference.

You may be where I am now, or you may be where I was where I started, or somewhere in the middle. No matter where you are, you probably feel that you have let God down. I know that is how I felt.

But one day, I “got” it. I really was saved by grace through faith, and that not of myself. It was a gift from God. The harder I tried to make it of myself, the worse it got -- until I had been practically convinced by well-meaning friends that I had lost my salvation.
And based on where I was at that moment, that’s exactly how it looked to me, too.
What is the point to all this? We’re living in the last days. The world isn’t what it seems and the enemy is moving among us, doing what he can to dis-empower us as preachers of the gospel and thereby prolong his time.

The first place he goes for is a head shot --– if the enemy can convince us we’re lost, then in terms of our military effectiveness in battle, we might as well be. That’s why Paul advises that we wear the ‘helmet of salvation’ before going into battle.


There are trials and tribulations and struggles in this life – and as the hours count down, the enemy attacks are only intensifying. You may suffer a few setbacks, you may even get knocked out of the battle for a bit.

You may think you’re worthless, but that is only because you can’t see the whole battlefield. Know this. The Lord Jesus saved you for a reason. He isn’t through with you yet.
The battle rages on. Stand strong.

Hal Lindsay Report 9 30 2016