In the book "He Came To Set The Captives Free" an ex-satanist explained how she would pretend to be Christian to infiltrate churches to destroy their effectiveness. I was trying to find if her testimony was online and came across this photo image. It should not surprise us to learn that Satan puts religious counterfeits in churches as we are warned about this in the Bible. (Matthew 7:15-20; II Corinthians 11:3-4, 13-15; II Peter 2; Jude)
How well protected is a military camp in a war zone if it is protected by a wall or fence with numerous unguarded and unsecured holes or openings that are ten to fifty times larger than an enemy combatant?
For decades the FDA would not approve condoms because of the high rate of failure, which is primarily due to the microscopic pinholes, and then a few years ago the FDA approved condoms. Recently I did a web search to learn why and learned that the FDA approved condoms because condoms passed important tests. This was disturbing, as none of the tests mentioned detect microscopic pinholes.
Regular church attendance is important but is not a substitute for personal Bible study. Everyone should be encouraged to read and study the Bible. A popular myth says that the Bible is only for Christians. The Bible provides guidance on every area of human existence and applying Bible teachings benefits both believers and unbelievers, the important difference is that for the unbeliever the Word of God is convicting and for the believer the Word of God is cleansing.
We certainly do need ministers, teachers, Christian fellowship, and
Christian literature to help us, and there are difficulties in the Bible, but
for the most part the Bible is self-explanatory and self-interpreting when one
is familiar with its contents. Every Christian should be a Bible student
regardless of whether he is a new convert or mature Christian, as this is
important for spiritual growth and to avoid being deceived by heresies and
especially important if you want to be effective trying to lead people out of
darkness and into the truth. Neglecting the word of God naturally leads to
seeking guidance and affirmation from other sources, including myths and
heresies. Regular personal Bible study is important because of the impact this
has on the mind and heart, the essential truths and principles, and the
practical teachings on every area of life. (Psalm 119:130; Proverbs 2:3-20;
3:5-7; II Timothy 2:15-16; 3:16)
“Shew me thy ways, O LORD; teach me thy paths. Lead me in thy truth, and
teach me: for thou art the God of my salvation; on thee do I wait all the day.”
(Psalm 25:4-5) Do you neglect personal Bible study because you cannot find the
time or because it seems tedious? Make Psalm 25:4-5 your sincere prayer.
It is important for Christians to be Bible students and that they apply,
teach, and defend the teachings of God's Word. I may not need to know all about
the source and composition of water if I am thirsty, but later if I wish to
acquire water in a dry and thirsty land or provide others with good water to
sustain their life and health some facts about water would be helpful, even
necessary. While simple child-like faith is all that is required to be saved,
what a believer should believe and be doing after being a believer for a while
is another matter. (Matthew 4:4; James 1:21-22; I Peter 2:2-3; II Peter 3:18;
etc.)
Reading through the Bible is not as major an undertaking as it may
initially appear. For example, if you read four chapters of the Bible every day
or read three chapters of the Old Testament and one chapter of the New
Testament every day, you would read the whole Bible within a year. I also
recommend that you read one chapter from the Book of Psalms and one chapter
from the Book of Proverbs every day for at least a year; Psalms will help with
prayer and worship and Proverbs teaches wisdom and reasons God’s standards are
right. Reading through the Bible will help you make a habit of looking at
individual Bible passages in relation to context and the whole Bible. Pray for
understanding and as you read apply questions like these to each chapter: What
did this account or passage convey to the first readers? What does this tell us
about God and His truths and standards? What lessons can we learn from this
that apply to us today? You will not always be able to answer each question,
but they will make Bible reading more interesting. (The Holy Bible on CD or an
Audio Bible is also a good investment and convenient to use while driving,
doing housework, relaxing, etc.)
While Bible reading is a form of Bible study it is also important to
study the Bible topically. A simple program of topical Bible study is to pray
for guidance and use a Reference Bible (e.g., Thompson Chain Reference Bible,
KJV), or a Topical Bible, and a Bible Dictionary, and it is also helpful to
have a Bible Concordance (e.g., Strong’s Concordance) that gives the meaning of
the words in the Hebrew and Greek texts. Always pray for understanding when you
study. Avoid focusing on just a few pet topics while neglecting other topics as
this can lead to being cranky or argumentative, and even a nuisance, about your
favourite subjects while knowing nothing about other subjects that are equally
important.
The exact program of Bible study
is not essential, what is important is regularity, and whether you study for several
hours or half an hour per day the Word of God will have power in your life
because of being in your mind regularly.
Along with warnings about
pornography there is need for warnings about romance novels and soap operas; pornography,
romance novels, and soap operas have negative effects on both sexes, and romance
novels and soap operas have the same effect on women that pornography has on
men. Of course, these are not the only culprits in the media. The heart is
influenced and molded by what is fed into the mind, and pornography, romance
novels, soap operas, and numerous movies and TV shows fill minds and hearts
with extremely unrealistic expectations.
Here are a few examples
of unrealistic expectations promoted in entertainment media that ruin lives and
destroy relationships:
·
Your spouse is supposed to be perfect.
·
You can change someone into your ideal.
(Brace yourself for a rude awakening. You can only expect to change someone if
he wears a diaper.)
·
Your spouse is responsible for your
happiness.
·
Your spouse should always agree with you and
like the same things. (This is not suggesting that you should enter a
relationship in which you are unequally yoked. It is important to marry someone
that shares the same religious and moral values. This is just a reminder that
it is not possible to find someone that always agrees on every point or always
likes the same things.)
·
Your spouse is supposed to perform
sexually like a porn movie character, or is supposed to act and be like a
character in a soap opera or a romance novel. (Comparing your spouse to people
that ONLY exist in someone’s imagination and wishful thinking instead of
seeking to please your spouse is a guaranteed recipe for discouragement and unhappiness.)
·
Good looks and good sex indicate or
replace good character and good communication.
·
Premarital sex and illicit cohabitation
are good preparation for marriage.
·
Imitating the sexual attitudes, behaviour,
and aggressiveness of men empowers women. (This merely fulfills male fantasies,
accommodates the baser instincts of men, and lowers the regard of men for
women.)
·
Women should be masculine, and men should
be either effeminate or adopt a macho facade. (Each extreme is contrary to
God's design for the male as the Lord's representative and the female as an
helpmeet.)
·
Egalitarian partnership and matriarchy are
preferable to patriarchy. (In nature the only thing with two heads is a freak,
and matriarchy and egalitarianism are destructive to marriage for the same
reason that you should not put two roosters in the same pen. Equals do not
complement, they compete. Yes, some women are wiser and more intelligent than
their husbands, but the issue is not who qualifies, the issue is obedience to
the Lord’s arrangement. God's design for communities, organizations, and the
family is hierarchy with a balance between equality of being and functional
subordination.)
·
A husband will or should do whatever his
wife tells him to do.
·
The wife is supposed to be in charge, but
the husband is responsible if her decisions turn out to be wrong or disastrous.
·
A husband is supposed to make as much
money as his wife wants to spend.
·
Sex is the most important part of
marriage. (While sex in marriage is important, sex is a small part of marriage,
and it is the everyday getting along with each other that ultimately makes or
breaks a marriage.)
·
Male and female think and feel the same
about sex.
The list could continue
but these should suffice to illustrate the point.
The silent killer of marriages
is unrealistic expectations, not unmet expectations. Unrealistic expectations
impede healthy communication and diminish the ability to enjoy reality, and
when unrealistic expectations meet reality, this often results in abuse,
infidelity, and a perpetual state of disappointment, along with other severe
problems.
While it is important to
be selective about choice of entertainment and amusements, it is even more
important to fill your mind, and thus influence your heart, with the word of
God. The exact program of Bible reading and study is not the issue, what
matters is regularity, and whether you devote half an hour or several hours a
day toward Bible study the Bible will have power in your life because of being
in your mind regularly. Among other benefits, regular personal Bible study
impacts what you are strongly attracted to and helps you look at things
realistically. “Yea, if thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice
for understanding;
If thou seekest her as silver, and searchest
for her as for hid treasures;
Then shalt thou understand the fear of the
LORD, and find the knowledge of God.
For the LORD giveth wisdom: out of his mouth
cometh knowledge and understanding.
He layeth up sound wisdom for the righteous:
he is a buckler to them that walk uprightly.
He keepeth the paths of
judgment, and preserveth the way of his saints.
Then shalt thou
understand righteousness, and judgment, and equity; yea, every good path.
When wisdom entereth into thine heart, and
knowledge is pleasant unto thy soul;
Discretion shall preserve thee, understanding
shall keep thee:
To deliver thee from the way of the evil man,
from the man that speaketh froward things;
Who leave the paths of uprightness, to walk in
the ways of darkness;
Who rejoice to do evil, and delight in the
frowardness of the wicked;
Whose ways are crooked, and they froward in
their paths:
To deliver thee from the strange woman, even
from the stranger which flattereth with her words.” (Proverbs 2:3-16)
Looking to term limits to reduce corruption is focusing on a symptom more than
addressing the problem. The problem is lack of accountability. Due to the
corrupting influence of power, whether a public official serves in the same
office for one year or fifty years, corruption can be expected if a public
official is not held accountable. For example, if States don't hold US
Congressmen representing their State accountable we shouldn't be surprised if
those delegates act contrary to the interests and welfare of their States, if
the US Congress assumes powers not delegated to the US Congress by the US
Constitution, if massive amounts of money go toward departments, agencies, and
programs that are not constitutionally mandated, or if the US Congress fails to
impeach public officials that commit crimes or violate the US Constitution.
A term limit merely
limits how long we will trust a public official, and the first problem with
that is we should not trust public officials, we should be holding them
accountable.
The several States should be exercising the constitutional right of recall. Article 5
of the Articles of Confederation gave each State the right to recall and
replace its congressmen at any time. The right of recall is not denied in the
US Constitution, which means the Tenth Amendment protects the right of each
State to recall and replace its congressmen.
“And
Dinah the daughter of Leah, which she bare unto Jacob, went out to see the
daughters of the land.” (Genesis 34:1) Dinah was likely in her early teens at
this time. It does not appear that Dinah sought or obtained her parents
permission or that her family was aware of what she was doing, and she put
herself out of their care and protection and exposed herslf to temptations. The
care of parents, especially pious parents, is an important protection for young
people, especially females. Even if they have shown themselves to be
responsible young adults, ignorance and inexperience can make them especially vulnerable
to temptation, flattery, and seduction.
It is
often assumed that Shechem abducted and raped Dinah, but the wording and
context of Genesis 34:2 indicates that this was consensual fornication and not
rape (E.g., consider verse 31; also note that ancient writings say there was a festival in the town of Shechem at that time. ).
Read chapter 34 of Genesis and consider a few questions: What made Shechem assume that Dinah was available to him for sexual immorality? Why did Shechem assume that Dinah would yield to his advances and why wasn't Dinah offended or resistant to Shechem's advances ("Took" in verse 2 implies that he petted or fondled her)? What made Shechem assume that Dinah's family would not be offended by his actions? Why did Hamor assume that Dinah's family would not be offended by Shechem's actions? What made Shechem assume that Dinah's family would willingly consent to let him marry her? “And Dinah the daughter of Leah, which she bare unto Jacob, went out to see the daughters of the land.” (Genesis 34:1) The problem was the company she kept. (Proverbs 13:20; I Corinthians 15:33)
Why did
Abraham stop pleading with God to spare Sodom and Gomorrah after God agreed to
spare them if there be ten righteous found there? (Genesis 18:32-33) Lot lived
in Sodom, and his wife and his unmarried daughters lived with him in his house.
Lot also had at least two sons, at least two married daughters, and at least
two sons in law living in Sodom; this amounted to at least ten people. (Genesis
19:12,14,15) But Lot was worldly and materialistic and kept close company (or
fellowship) with wicked and ungodly associations. (Genesis 13:10-13; II Peter
2:7-8) What effect did this have? In a crisis Lot offered to let a mob sexually
abuse his daughters, thus demonstrating a heathen attitude toward daughters.
(Genesis 19:8) Lot apparently never expressed any disapproval of moral
abominations until a mob wanted to abuse his angelic visitors. (Genesis 19:9)
He did not witness to his sons in law until the day before the destruction.
(Genesis 19:14) His younger daughters were aware and convinced of his moral weaknesses,
and apparently assumed from his example that fornication is acceptable if it is
heterosexual. (Genesis 19:31-32; compare Genesis 19:5-8) If Lot had followed
Abraham's example there could have been at least ten righteous people in Sodom
who possibly could have influenced and transformed their community and
persuaded unbelievers to become believers. (Genesis 18:19)
There is a lesson here that applies to us today. What happened to traditional Christian values in modern America? The decline of western civilization was made inevitable by the decline in Christian influence. In the ecclesiastical world Bible truths and standards were disregarded or rejected as irrelevant and old-fashioned and as the ecclesiastical world compromised Bible truths and principles the secular world followed. As Christians compromised truths and values to gain the love or acceptance of the world they lost respect and influence.
Many resent the use of
Deuteronomy 22:5 because it is in the Old Testament. But you cannot understand
the New Testament, and you cannot rightly divide God's Word, without the Old
Testament. (II Timothy 2:15; 3:16; also consider Psalm 33:11, Proverbs 19:21, I
Corinthians 10, & James 1:17) Should we insist that commands against
murder, rape, and theft do not apply today since those restrictions are in the
Old Testament? (Incidentally, there was a time when State and federal laws
required the same penalty for rape as premeditated murder because of
Deuteronomy 22:26) It is no more inappropriate to use Deuteronomy 22:5 to
condemn unisex appearance than it is to use Psalm 23 to preach a funeral. Regardless
of prevailing trends and customs, it is important for men to look masculine and
women to look feminine and for both sexes to dress decently and wear
gender-appropriate clothing. (Romans 1:24-27; I Timothy 2:8-10; etc.)
It is important to
consider whether certain clothing is worn by the opposite sex to discern
whether it is proper. Some argue that this means women cannot wear a belt or
socks because men wear such things, or vice versa, but that is evading the
issue. We are talking about the obvious and not some hidden or neutral item
that does not have anything to do with the sex of a person. (Also, just because
a certain appearance or article of clothing might be acceptable in a certain
circumstance does not make it appropriate everywhere and all the time.)
Because of the popularity
of the myth that male and female think and feel the same about sex, many
otherwise conscientious women fail to realise that, while pants do not normally
provoke lust in a woman when worn by a man (unless they are tight), pants (even
loose fitting) on a woman tend to draw male attention to her crotch. While
neither gender is immune to lust, and both genders can be verbally and visually
stimulated, women tend to be more verbally stimulated and men tend to be more
visually stimulated.
Also keep in mind that if you are not trying to sell something or give it away you should not advertise it. If you are single, you should consider what kind of relationship you hope for and what kind of person you want to attract; for obvious reasons I have never tried to catch a fish by putting deer lure on a hook. If you wear an army uniform, it should not be a surprise if someone thinks you are a soldier. If you wear a police uniform, it should not be a surprise if someone thinks you are a cop. Likewise, if you wear the attire of an harlot it should not be a surprise if someone thinks you are immoral and making yourself available for immorality. (Proverbs 7:10)
Modesty also helps a woman avoid dangerous situations. (Please note that this is in no way saying or implying that immodest attire in anyway justifies rape or any sexual abuse. This is merely pointing out that provoking lust, even unintentionally, in weak minded and perverted men, that a woman may not recognise as such or even be aware of, is dangerous.)
Ask yourself: What do you
look like in this clothing from a distance and does it tend to attract the
wrong kind of attention? Do you appear feminine or masculine? What do your clothes,
appearance, and behaviour say about you? Do your clothes and appearance tend to
indicate dignity and virtue? Do you focus on outward adornment at the expense
of neglecting inner adornment? (I Peter 3:3-4) What are the motives behind your
choice of clothes and appearance? (Romans 6:12-13; I Corinthians 10:14, 31;
Titus 2:11-12) Do you find it necessary to use the arguments of the world to
justify your choice of clothes and appearance? (Romans 12:2; I Corinthians
1:20; 2:5; Colossians 1:9; 2:8)
Good Reasons for Wearing Skirts and Dresses Only https://theheavenlyhearth.com/2019/01/05/good-reasons-for-wearing-skirts-and-dresses-only/?fbclid=IwAR21wYO5bnGaB2jZo1MkmaCRACLT6q0n4HMcbDsLnpDrCuw4lg47BMiTLEs
Reasons for wearing skirts and dresses https://plainmodesty.com/reasons-for-skirts-and-dresses/?fbclid=IwAR2izz45zU4rUzgybGQTZu65Rji_C077G1UzvPVSAmIAQ-iyOQuqxQnN_ic
4 Reasons Why I
Don’t Wear Pants https://moreradiance.com/4-reasons-why-i-dont-wear-pants/?fbclid=IwAR24JCQD1XOfzfvwE-qDBWs_sYcbna8cOEupB-jcNRLOdgj0dLPAXndbsbY
WOULD I WEAR THIS IN FRONT OF JESUS? https://modern1modesty.blogspot.com/2013/12/would-i-wear-this-in-front-of-jesus.html
HOW THE CHILD OF GOD SHOULD DRESS https://www.shadowofthesteeple.com/booklets/5B_dress.html?fbclid=IwAR3xDABSA0fzFNlKtTFGjDq1vS_WJvzM0xagQznxARWXPyajGnnccJvkbM8
MODESTY IS FOR MEN https://thatcrazychristianromance.com/modesty-is-for-men/
Deuteronomy 22:5 and Gender Distinct Clothing https://faithsaves.net/deuteronomy-22-5/
The Connection Between Evangelism and Gender Issues https://web.archive.org/web/20070828082827/http://www.cbmw.org/resources/articles/evangelism.php
Three men, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, maintained their integrity in spite of enormous peer pressure, religious intolerance, and threat of death. (Daniel 3:1-18) Note that Nebuchadnezzar’s words indicate some knowledge of Bible teachings that he did not learn from his pagan advisers, which implies that Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego used opportunities to teach him Bible teachings. (Daniel 3:25) As a result of keeping their integrity a pagan empire was reformed, religious freedom was established for God’s people, and many unbelievers became believers. (Daniel 3:28-29) Nothing in Scripture says or implies that the same thing cannot happen today.
Daniel prayed openly in
defiance of religious intolerance and threat of death and as a result of his
unswerving devotion a pagan empire was reformed and many unbelievers became
believers. (Daniel 6:4-26) Nothing in Scripture says or implies that the same
thing cannot happen today.
One lone man, Jonah,
preached repentance in the capital city of a pagan empire famous for extreme
cruelty and persecution of God’s people, and as a result an entire city
converted and an empire was reformed. (Jonah 3:1-10) Nothing in Scripture says
or implies that the same thing cannot happen today.
Putting undisciplined
behavior in the category of a disease makes it easier for liberals to condemn
all corporal punishment of children. (Proverbs 13:24; 22:15; 23:13-14; 29:15)
All too often children are diagnosed with Attention Deficit Disorder based on little
or no examination and merely because they exhibit childish attitudes or
undisciplined behavior, and often in spite of any contradicting evidence (such
as when a child in question demonstrates the ability to give undivided
attention to a TV, video game, or phone conversation for long periods of time).
Some of the studies and claims on this remind me of an episode of the
"WKRP IN Cincinatti" TV show in which a psychiatrist (who turned out
to be a quack) being interviewed on the air insisted that all children are
mentally insane because they are childish. I do not claim expertise, nor am I
attempting to diagnose anyone's child, and I also acknowledge that there are
psychological maladies with a medical or biological basis. I am simply
encouraging everyone to study this matter further.
The Great A.D.D. Hoax, by David Keirsey
ADHD: The Hoax Unravels, By Philip Hickey, PhD
ADHD: A Destructive Psychiatric Hoax, By Philip Hickey, PhD
The alleged Biblical exceptions to the Biblical norm of intra-racial marriage lack scriptural support because there is often a lack of racial information in the Bible about the so-called exceptions. The ancient world did not have surnames as we use them, and people were often referred to as being in a certain category based on geography and were called by their first name and the distinguishing place of origin. (“Jesus of Nazareth” is an example.) This and the uncertainty about which ethnic groups occupied which areas and when those ethnic groups occupied certain areas can make it extremely difficult to determine that the alleged exceptions were genuine exceptions.
Someone being described as “Ethiopian,” “Egyptian,” “Hittite,” “Hivite,” or “Canaanite” may tell us something about their geographic location or origin but may not tell us anything about their ethnic composition. For example, the land of Canaan was the land of the Hebrews before the Canaanites moved in, and there were Shemites (descendants of Shem) already living in the land of Canaan before the patriarchs arrived. "Canaanite" could mean a descendant of Canaan, a resident of the land of Canaan, or a merchant, depending on context, and context may not always clearly indicate which meaning applies.
Consider a few alleged exceptions to the Biblical norm of intra-racial marriage:
Hagar was an Egyptian slave given to Abraham by the Pharoah of Egypt. (Genesis 12:16; 16:1) Egyptian slaves originated from foreign lands.
Did Judah marry a Hamite or a Shemite woman? (Genesis 38) Why does the text specify the name "Shuah," and how much evidence is there that Shuah the son of Keturah in Genesis 25:2 and Shuah in Genesis 38:2 are not the same person? (Note also that the word "daughter" can also mean granddaughter or great granddaughter. -Genesis 38:2, 12)
Was Tamar a Hamite or Shemite? (Genesis 38:12-30) Ancient rabbinical writings say that Tamar was a daughter of Shem (the son of Noah), who was a priest; this would explain the penalty prescribed by Judah. (Genesis 38:24; Leviticus 21:9; note that much of the Mosaic Law codified customs or practices already in vogue among Israelites. Also note that Shem was still alive when Jacob turned fifty, and it was not odd or unknown for extremely old men to father children.)
Joseph's wife Asenath was the adopted daughter of Potipherah and the biological daughter of Dinah, the daughter of Jacob, and Shechem, the prince of the town with the same name. (Genesis 41:45)
The Bible specifies that Zipporah was a Midianite, and then later refers to her as Ethiopian because the Midianites lived near Ethiopia and the Ethiopian Empire sometimes extended to both sides of the Red Sea. (Exodus 2:15-21; Numbers 12:1)
Rahab was a woman of Hebraic (probably Midianite) ancestry. Here are just a few points to consider: The name Rahab is distinctly Hebrew and predates the Book of Joshua. (Job 9:13; 26:12) Her comprehension of, and affinity toward, the God of Israel and her ease of communication with the spies. (Joshua 2) The spies agreed to spare Rahab and her family without any reservations. (Joshua 2:12-14; Deuteronomy 7:1-3; 20:16-17. Incidentally, Rahab was not a prostitute. The Bible does not say that Rahab was an harlot, it refers to her as Rahab the harlot. Rahab was an innkeeper, it was not common for a woman to be an innkeeper, and "harlot" was a title for female innkeepers. On the town wall at or near the city gate was the normal location for an inn, and her family living with her was typical of innkeepers.)
Did Boaz violate the command in Deuteronomy 23:3 by
marrying Ruth? No, Ruth was an Israelite woman. Let’s examine this further: Ruth 1:15-16 does indicate that Ruth and Orpah might have come from families that worshipped pagan deities, but this does not mean they were not Israelites. Israelites often worshipped the gods of the lands that they had taken and often tried to mix the worship of Jehovah and the worship of pagan deities. The land of Moab was the first land conquered by the Israelites after wandering in the wilderness, and the Amorites had already conquered and occupied the land of Moab when the Israelites came. (Numbers 21:25, 29) The Israelites conquered the land of Moab and killed everyone there. (Deuteronomy 2:32-34) Then the Israelites advanced into the land of Ammon and killed everyone there. (Numbers 21:33-35) After the Moabites and Ammonites were killed or driven out the entire area of the Jordan river was settled by the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and the half tribe of Manasseh, and from that time onward that area was purely Israelite territory and Israelites living in the old lands of Moab and Ammon were often called Moabites or Ammonites (Consider that Anglo-Saxon Americans living in California today are called Californians, and being called Californians and living in a former Mexican territory does not make them Mexicans.). (Deuteronomy 3:12-16) Three hundred years later it was reported that the Israelites still had exclusive occupation of the lands of Moab and Ammon. (Judges 11:12-26) About one hundred and thirty years after the Israelites occupied the land of Moab, Elimelech and his wife and two sons left the land of Judah and “went to sojourn in the country of Moab,” which was occupied exclusively by the Israelites, and Elimelech’s sons married women of the country of Moab and one of them was Ruth. (Ruth 1:1-4; Numbers 21:25, 29, 31, 33-35; Deuteronomy 2:32-34; 3:12-16; 23:3; Judges 11:12-26)
Was Uriah born to ethnic Hittite parents and then later in his life converted to Yahwism? Consider that Uriah “the Hittite” had a distinctly Hebrew name that means “Jehovah is my light.” (II Samuel 11:3)
Didn’t Esther marry Ahaseurus, a Persian king? (Book of Esther) Persians were descended from Elam, a son of Shem. (Genesis 10:22)
God separated mankind into different races to prevent the different peoples from corrupting each other and uniting against God; race-mixing movements tend to turn people against God. (Acts 17:26-27; Genesis 10: 11:1-6; Deuteronomy 7:3-4; Joshua 23:11-13; I Kings 11:1-11; Ezra 9:2, 12-14; Nehemiah 13:23-27; United Nations; etc. If you look at the Middle East on a map or globe you can see that “the Lord’s inheritance” separated the descendants of Shem and the descendants of Japheth from the descendants of Ham and vice versa. -Deuteronomy 32:8) Many will point to supposed exceptions in Scripture, but, even if there are exceptions, exceptions should not nullify standards.
Further reading:
Reconsidering Interracial Marriage: The Christian Case For Intra-Racial Marriage
Kinist Orthodoxy: A Response to Brian Schwertley
Is Plan For Racial Strife Another Hoax? By Henry Makow PhD
"Beloved, when I
gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful
for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for
the faith which was once delivered unto the saints." (Jude 3)
A few years ago I
discussed and debated creation with evolutionists via discussion groups. I grew
tired of trying to discuss and debate with people that demonstrate such a
strong aversion to facts and logic and use science the way a drunkard uses a
lamp post (for support and not illumination), and I asked the Lord why he was
leading me to discuss and debate with people who are so unlikely to accept the
truth. I was led to reread I Kings 18, which reminded me that the more things
change the more they stay the same. When Elijah contended for the faith on
Mount Carmel not one of the priests of Baal repented and converted to Yahwism,
but many unbelievers and double-minded believers watching became dedicated
believers.
The Book of Mormon
disputes Mormonism probably more than the Bible. Consider a few things taught
in the Book of Mormon:
The Mormon concept of God
cannot be found in the Book of Mormon, but the Christian concept of God is
taught in the Book Of Mormon. "And the honor be to the Father, and to the
Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen." (Testimony of Three
Witnesses) "And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and
there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in
the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the
only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,
which is one God, without end. Amen." (2 Nephi 31:21) "Now, this
restoration shall come to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both
male and female, both the wicked and the righteous; and even there shall not so
much as a hair of their heads be lost; But every thing shall be restored to its
perfect frame, as it is now, or in the body, and shall be brought and be
arraigned before the bar of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy
Spirit, which is one Eternal God, to be judged according to their works,
whether they be good or whether they be evil." (Alma 11:44) "And
after this manner shall ye baptize in my name; for behold, verily I say unto
you, that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one; and I am in the
Father, and the Father in me, and the Father and I are one." (3 Nephi
11:27) "And thus will the Father bear record of me, and the Holy Ghost
will bear record unto him of the Father and me; for the Father, and I, and the
Holy Ghost are one." (3 Nephi 11:36) "And he hath brought to pass the
redemption of the world, whereby he that is found guiltless before him at the
judgment day hath it given unto him to dwell in the presence of God in his
kingdom, to sing ceaseless praises with the choirs above, unto the Father, and
unto the Son, and unto the Holy Ghost, which are one God, in a state of
happiness which hath no end." (Mormon 7:7)
The Book of Mormon says
that Jesus is God. "And because he said unto them that Christ was the God,
the Father of all things, and said that he should take upon him the image of
man, and it should be the image after which man was created in the beginning;
or in other words, he said that man was created after the image of God, and
that God should come down among the children of men, and take upon him flesh
and blood, and go forth upon the face of the earth— " (Mosiah 7:27; also
see Alma 11:38-39)
The Book of Mormon says
that God is unchangeable. "For I know that God is not a partial God,
neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all
eternity." (Moroni 8:18) "Behold I say unto you, he that denieth
these things knoweth not the gospel of Christ; yea, he has not read the
scriptures; if so, he does not understand them. For do we not read that God is
the same yesterday, today, and forever, and in him there is no variableness
neither shadow of changing?" (Mormon 9:9)
The Book of Mormon
teaches the virgin birth of Christ. "And behold, he shall be born of Mary,
at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a
precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power
of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God." (Alma
7:10) "Therefore, the Lord himself shall give you a sign—Behold, a virgin
shall conceive, and shall bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."
(2 Nephi 17:14)
The Book of Mormon
teaches the bodily resurrection of Christ and all dead. "And this death of
which I have spoken, which is the spiritual death, shall deliver up its dead;
which spiritual death is hell; wherefore, death and hell must deliver up their
dead, and hell must deliver up its captive spirits, and the grave must deliver
up its captive bodies, and the bodies and the spirits of men will be restored
one to the other; and it is by the power of the resurrection of the Holy One of
Israel." (2 Nephi 9:12) "And now I bid unto all, farewell. I soon go
to rest in the paradise of God, until my spirit and body shall again reunite,
and I am brought forth triumphant through the air, to meet you before the
pleasing bar of the great Jehovah, the Eternal Judge of both quick and dead.
Amen." (Moroni 10:24) "The spirit and the body shall be reunited
again in its perfect form; both limb and joint shall be restored to its proper
frame, even as we now are at this time; and we shall be brought to stand before
God, knowing even as we know now, and have a bright recollection of all our
guilt. Now, this restoration shall come to all, both old and young, both bond
and free, both male and female, both the wicked and the righteous; and even
there shall not so much as a hair of their heads be lost; but every thing shall
be restored to its perfect frame, as it is now, or in the body, and shall be
brought and be arraigned before the bar of Christ the Son, and God the Father,
and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God, to be judged according to their
works, whether they be good or whether they be evil." (Alma 11:43-44)
"But whether it be at his resurrection or after, I do not say; but this
much I say, that there is a space between death and the resurrection of the
body, and a state of the soul in happiness or in misery until the time which is
appointed of God that the dead shall come forth, and be reunited, both soul and
body, and be brought to stand before God, and be judged according to their
works."(Alma 40:21) "The soul shall be restored to the body, and the
body to the soul; yea, and every limb and joint shall be restored to its body;
yea, even a hair of the head shall not be lost; but all things shall be
restored to their proper and perfect frame." (Alma 40:23)
The Book of Mormon
teaches the necessity of the New Birth. "And the Lord said unto me:
'Marvel not that all mankind, yea, men and women, all nations, kindreds,
tongues and people, must be born again; yea, born of God, changed from their
carnal and fallen state, to a state of righteousness, being redeemed of God,
becoming his sons and daughters; And thus they become new creatures; and unless
they do this, they can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God.' " (Mosiah
27:25-26) "And now I say unto you that this is the order after which I am
called, yea, to preach unto my beloved brethren, yea, and every one that
dwelleth in the land; yea, to preach unto all, both old and young, both bond
and free; yea, I say unto you the aged, and also the middle aged, and the
rising generation; yea, to cry unto them that they must repent and be born
again." (Alma 5:49)
The Book of Mormon
teaches that salvation is only through Jesus Christ. "But wo, wo unto him
who knoweth that he rebelleth against God! For salvation cometh to none such
except it be through repentance and faith on the Lord Jesus Christ."
(Mosiah 3:12) "And moreover, I say unto you, that there shall be no other
name given nor any other way nor means whereby salvation can come unto the
children of men, only in and through the name of Christ, the Lord
Omnipotent." (Mosiah 3:17)
The Book of Mormon
contradicts baptism for the dead by teaching that no salvation is possible for
those who die in their sins. "But behold, and fear, and tremble before
God, for ye ought to tremble; for the Lord redeemeth none such that rebel
against him and die in their sins; yea, even all those that have perished in
their sins ever since the world began, that have wilfully rebelled against God,
that have known the commandments of God, and would not keep them; these are they
that have no part in the first resurrection." (Mosiah 15:26) "And wo
unto them who shall do these things away and die, for they die in their sins,
and they cannot be saved in the kingdom of God; and I speak it according to the
words of Christ; and I lie not." (Moroni 10:26)
To become a Mormon, I
would have to accept the Book of Mormon as the inspired word of God, but if I
accepted the Book Of Mormon as the truth I would have to reject Mormon
teachings as false doctrines. Jesus Christ said "I am the way." (John
14:6) The priesthood is not the way, Joseph Smith is not the way, and Mormonism
is not the way. Only Jesus is the way.
For more information on Mormonism visit:
Witnesses For Jesus www.4witness.org
Watchman Fellowship www.watchman.org
In his book, "The
United Pentecostal Church and the Evangelical Movement," J. L. Hall (a UPC
preacher) made some good points about the possibility of fellowship and
cooperation between the UPC and Evangelical Trinitarian organizations. It is
true that Oneness Pentecostals and Evangelical Trinitarians share numerous
doctrines and concerns in common. In our relationships with Christians who hold
different beliefs and convictions it is often better to light a candle than to
curse the darkness, and we should recognize that any knowledge that any of us
has is incomplete and the Holy Bible is the final authority. (I Corinthians
8:2; I Timothy 3:16-17)
Evangelical Trinitarians
and Oneness Pentecostals do share fundamental beliefs in common, such as:
·
The authority of the Holy Bible.
·
Monotheism.
·
The virgin birth and complete deity of
Jesus Christ.
·
The hereditary depravity of man.
·
The blood atonement.
·
Eternal punishment for the unsaved dead.
·
The physical resurrection of Christ and all
dead.
·
The second coming of Christ in bodily
human form.
·
The necessity of faith and repentance.
·
Concern about a sanctified lifestyle.
While there may be valid
reasons for not identifying the UPC as a cult, cultic trends and policies in
the UPC are cause for concern. It is not denying anyone’s sincerity or
salvation to be wary of unscriptural doctrines and practices. In addition to
the numerous valid points made by J. L. Hall, these also should be considered:
The fellowship and cooperation between the UPC and Evangelical Trinitarian
organizations that is suggested or proposed would require Evangelical
Trinitarians to compromise doctrines on soteriology and theology, and the
history of the Oneness Pentecostal movement in the Twentieth Century (the UPC
in particular) indicates that such compromise is most likely to be completely
one-sided.
In 1916 Pentecostals who
insisted that Acts 2:38 gives the baptismal formula left the Assemblies of God
to form other groups. In 1936 the PAJC (Pentecostal Assemblies of Jesus Christ)
ratified a five-point agenda with a view toward merger with the PCI
(Pentecostal Church, Incorporated), and this was rejected by the PCI because of
the proposal that the teaching that water baptism in Jesus' name and the
baptism of the Holy Ghost with the initial sign of speaking in tongues
constitutes the new birth be accepted as one of the fundamental doctrines. At
The Merger of the PCI and the PAJC in 1945 the wording of the Fundamental
Doctrine of the UPC (United Pentecostal Church) was chosen because of the
different opinions about whether water baptism and the baptism of the Holy
Ghost with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues are causes or
consequences of the new birth, and without the unity clause, that brethren
"shall endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit" and "shall not
contend for their different views to the disunity of the body," there
would have been no merger. John 3:5=Acts 2:38 or Acts-2:38-or-Hell has never
been the universal opinion of Oneness Pentecostals, and current policies of the
UPC on soteriology violate the agreement of The Merger in 1945. It should also
be noted that not all early Oneness Pentecostal leaders adopted the
understanding of the Godhead that is being required in the UPC (and other
Oneness Pentecostal groups) today, and many Oneness Pentecostals (Howard A.
Goss, Frank Ewart, Andrew Urshan, etc.) taught the triunity of God. Some, such
as the first General Superintendent of the UPC Howard A. Goss, insisted that
belief in a Trinity was acceptable and made a distinction between tritheism and
Trinitarianism. The doctrinal statement of the PCI on the Godhead described God
as triune, a Trinity.
The theory pushed by
Oneness Pentecostals that a doctrine is proven to be a divine truth by a
special revelation without scriptural support is a form of Gnosticism and not
Christian truth. If you received a "revelation" that you cannot
verify with Scripture you should seriously question which "god" gave
you the "revelation." God reveals Himself to man through His Word and
Scripture itself, comparing Scripture with Scripture, is the key to the
interpretation of Scripture. (I Corinthians 2:13; II Timothy 2:15; 3:16)
Whether any of us completely understand or accept a Bible truth does not
determine if it true. (Psalm 3:5-7; Isaiah 55:8-9)
Is Matthew 28:19 or is
Acts 2:38 the baptismal formula? Matthew 28:19 is the only baptismal command in
the Bible addressed to baptizers, and all baptismal commands in the Book of
Acts are addressed to baptismal candidates. If God had wanted Acts 2:38 to
convey that converts are to be baptized for the sake of Jesus Christ or as a
submission to the authority of Jesus Christ ("In the name of Jesus
Christ") without specifying the words to be spoken by the baptizer, how
would He have changed the wording of Acts 2:38? (Consider Colossians 3:17)
It is wrong to say that
all Trinitarians are guilty of tritheism or of denying the complete deity of
Jesus Christ (as many Oneness Pentecostals contend). It is incorrect to say
that the Trinity is a pagan concept; ancient pagans did not worship any
trinity, they worshipped triads, and a triad is three gods while the Trinity is
one God existing in three persons. Our English word person comes from the Latin
"persona," which is literally a face mask used by actors, and hence a
person, etc., and the word Trinity is a combination of the word
"trine," which means threefold or three times, and the suffix
"-ity," which means state, character, or condition. In other words,
God is not triplex (1+1+1), God is triune (1x1x1). (Matthew 28:19; II
Corinthians 13:14; I John 5:7) There is one God, and that one God is
characterized by interior personal relationships. (Genesis 1:26-27; 11:6-8)
If God had wanted to
convey that the Son of God is divine, how would He have changed the wording of
John 5:18 and Hebrews 1:8? "Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill
him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his
Father, making himself equal with God." (John 5:18) "But unto the Son
he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness
is the sceptre of thy kingdom." (Hebrews 1:8)
If Jesus had wanted to
convey a distinction between Himself and the Father and the Holy Ghost how
would He have changed the wording of John 14:23, 24, and 26? "Jesus
answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my
Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not
mine, but the Father's which sent me." (John 14:23-24) "But the
Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he
shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance,
whatsoever I have said unto you." (John 14:26)
If Jesus had wanted to
convey that He and the Father have separate wills how would He have changed the
wording of Matthew 26:39? "And he went a little further, and fell on his
face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass
from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt." (Matthew 26:39)
If God had wanted to
convey that Jesus Christ was completely God and not just part God how would He
have changed the wording of Colossians 1:19? "For it pleased the Father
that in him should all fulness dwell." (Colossians 1:19)
If God had wanted to
convey that Jesus' human nature was not separated from His divine nature how
would He have changed the wording of Mark 2:5-12? "When Jesus saw their
faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee. But
there were certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts,
Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?
And immediately when Jesus perceived in his spirit that they so reasoned within
themselves, he said unto them, Why reason ye these things in your hearts?
Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven
thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk? But that ye may know
that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick
of the palsy,) I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into
thine house. And immediately he arose, took up the bed, and went forth before
them all; insomuch that they were all amazed, and glorified God, saying, We
never saw it on this fashion." (Mark 2:5-12)
If God had wanted to
convey that the Father and the Lamb are distinct persons how would He have
changed the wording of Revelation 5:1-9? "And I saw in the right hand of
him that sat on the throne a book written within and on the backside, sealed
with seven seals. And I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, Who
is worthy to open the book, and to loose the seals thereof? And no man in
heaven, nor in earth, neither under the earth, was able to open the book,
neither to look thereon. And I wept much, because no man was found worthy to
open and to read the book, neither to look thereon. And one of the elders saith
unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David,
hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof. And I
beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the
midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and
seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.
And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the
throne. And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty
elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden
vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints. And they sung a new
song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof:
for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every
kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation." (Revelation 5:1-9)
Consider a few of the
problems with the John 3:5=Acts 2:38 or Acts-2:38-or-Hell theory:
In Acts 2:38, why is the
command to repent given in the second person plural while the command to be
baptized is given in the third person singular? If God had wanted the baptismal
command to be directed to people who have already repented and been forgiven
how would He have changed the wording of Acts 2:38 and Acts 3:19? "Then
Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of
Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the
Holy Ghost." (Acts 2:38) "Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that
your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the
presence of the Lord." (Acts 3:19) If Mark 16:16 were changed to read
"He that believeth and pays tithes (or other Christian activity) shall be
saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned," would you assume that
tithing (or whatever Christian activity is inserted) is a prerequisite for
salvation?
B-o-r-n does not spell
baptized. John 3:5 was a response to the supposition that the new birth could
be wrought through physical means, such as childbirth. (John 3:4) There are
always cases of people assuming that they are saved because they were born and
raised in a certain religion or denomination or assuming that they were saved
through rituals and ceremonies, and this was true of many when Christ walked
the earth. (John 1:12-13; 3:1-6) The new birth is a personal experience with
Jesus Christ. (John 3:5-16; Titus 3:5-7)
Some New Testament
passages used to prove baptismal regeneration refer to Spirit baptism. If God
had wanted Mark 16:16, Romans 6:3-5, I Corinthians 12:13, Galatians 3:27, &
Colossians 2:12 to refer to baptism into the body of Christ, which occurs in
the initial experience at faith and repentance and can only be done by the Holy
Ghost, how would He have changed the wording of these passages? “He that believeth
and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.”
(Mark 16:16) "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus
Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by
baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the
glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we
have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in
the likeness of his resurrection." (Romans 6:3-5) "For by one Spirit
are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we
be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit." (I
Corinthians 12:13) "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ
have put on Christ." (Galatians 3:27) "Buried with him in baptism,
wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God,
who hath raised him from the dead." (Colossians 2:12)
I Peter 3:21 says that
water baptism satisfies the demands of a good conscience and is figurative
(symbolic/declarative) of salvation. How can a figure be that of which it is a
figure? If God had wanted to convey that Noah's safety during the deluge was
the outward confirmation of the grace he had already received years earlier (Genesis
6:8) and that, in the same way, Christian baptism is the outward confirmation
of the grace a Christian had already received when he trusted Jesus Christ as
Savior how would God have changed the wording of I Peter 2:20-21? "Which
sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the
days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls
were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save
us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good
conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." (I Peter
3:20-21)
Faith and repentance are
inseparable; saving faith is the turning to Jesus Christ (God in the flesh) for
salvation, and repentance is the turning from sin to God. (Acts 20:21) The
Greek words rendered "and" (Kai) and "for" (Eis) in Acts
2:38 have many possible meanings, so whether Acts 2:38 means that repentance or
water baptism is the effective agent for the remission of sins depends on the immediate
context and the context of New Testament teachings, which indicate that
repentance is the effective agent for the remission of sins. (Consider Luke
24:47; Acts 2:21; 3:19; 17:30-31; 11:18; 26:20; I Corinthians 1:17)
Wrong conclusions are
inevitable when it is assumed that every spiritual experience mentioned in the
New Testament, or that every blessing of the blood atonement, is a prerequisite
for salvation. It should be noted that the Bible teaches a distinction between
various works and ministries of the Holy Ghost, and not all blessings of the
blood atonement are prerequisites for salvation. Are all the signs mentioned in
Mark 16:17-18 expected to accompany the conversion of every Christian? Is there
any solid teaching in the Book of Acts that "tongues" must accompany
the conversion of every Christian and is prerequisite for salvation? Is there
any solid teaching in I Corinthians that "tongues" must accompany the
conversion of every Christian and is prerequisite for salvation? Is there any
solid teaching in the whole Bible that "tongues" must accompany the
conversion of every Christian and is prerequisite for salvation?
Ananias addressed Paul
(then Saul) as brother before Paul was baptized in water. (Acts 9:17-18;
22:12-16.) Note that Acts 22:16 does not say that spiritual cleansing is a
result of water baptism or of the baptizer calling on the name of the Lord.
"And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy
sins, calling on the name of the Lord." (Acts 22:16) If God had wanted to
convey that the washing away of sins is the result of the convert calling on
the name of the Lord how would He have changed the wording of Acts 22:16?
The Ephesian believers
were called disciples before they spake in tongues, and Paul implied that if
they had a Christian baptism they would have heard of the Holy Ghost. (Acts
19:1-6; consider the wording of Matthew 28:19)
If water baptism is part
of salvation and not after salvation, wouldn’t this put the baptizer in the
position of priesthood?
Acts 2:38 is a truth, but
Jesus is the truth. (John 14:6) While there is more to life in Christ than the
initial experience, salvation is a personal experience with Jesus Christ and is
through the finished work of Calvary, not the blood of Christ and additional
supplements. (John 3:13-16; Acts 2:21; 10:43; Romans 5:1-2, 8-11; Ephesians
2:8-9; Titus 3:5-7; I Peter 1:3; I John 5:20)
The main hindrance to
fellowship and cooperation between Oneness Pentecostals and Evangelical
Trinitarians is the Us-Only pride and We-Versus-They complex being promoted by
the UPC and other Oneness Pentecostal organizations. (Mark 9:38-42; Philippians
1:18)
In the Twentieth Century, especially the latter half of the Twentieth Century, it became normal or even typical for Christians in America ...
