Bio

Dr. Mike Halsey is the chancellor of Grace Biblical Seminary, a Bible teacher at the Hangar Bible Fellowship, the author of Truthspeak and his new book, The Gospel of Grace and Truth: A Theology of Grace from the Gospel of John," both available on Amazon.com. A copy of his book, Microbes in the Bloodstream of the Church, is also available as an E-book on Amazon.com. If you would like to a receive a copy of his weekly Bible studies and other articles of biblical teaching and application, you can do so by writing to Dr. Halsey at michaeldhalsey@bellsouth.net and requesting, "The Hangar Bible Fellowship Journal."

Comments may be addressed to michaeldhalsey@bellsouth.net.

If you would like to contribute to his ministry according to the principle of II Corinthians 9:7, you may do so by making your check out to Hangar Bible Fellowship and mailing it to 65 Teal Ct., Locust Grove, GA 30248. All donations are tax deductible.

Come visit the Hangar some Sunday at 10 AM at the above address. You'll be glad you did.

Other recommended grace-oriented websites are:

notbyworks.org
literaltruth.org
gracebiblicalseminary.org
duluthbible.org
clarityministries.org

Also:

Biblical Ministries, Inc.
C/O Dr. Richard Grubbs
P. O. Box 64582
Lubbock, TX 79464-4582

Friday, December 28, 2018

THE OVER CHURCHED

Watch out for the over-churched. He (or she) will discourage and depress you and, like a little leaven, will leaven the whole lump sooner rather than later. You can easily spot someone who's over-churched. There he sits, enduring another sermon as he glances at his watch. He knowingly nods and says to himself, “I’ve heard all this before.” Sometimes he's more crudely vocal, as the fellow who told his pastor, "You can't teach me anything; I've been to the seminary." You can spot him: he's the know-it-all who, if he does hear anything new to him, will reject it out of hand. Eliot Ness led the Untouchables; today there are the Unteachables, following in the path of the learned Pharisees.

A thinking teenager asked me a thought-provoking question, "In all your years of studying the Bible have you changed any of your beliefs? If so, which ones?" This opened the floodgates of thought that led to my oral admission, "Yes. Lots of them."  

But isn't this the way it ought to be? Isn't this exactly what the New Testament authors often wrote about, as encapsulated by Peter in his last divinely inspired words--"But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ." Peter also wrote, "Like newborn babies, long for the pure milk of the word, so that by it you may grow in respect to salvation,Wasn't it Paul who wrote, "But speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ." 

Spiritual growth brings change because whether it's physical or spiritual, growth, means change: changed attitudes, changed lifestyles, changed beliefs as new truths in the Old Book which have been there all along leap off the page with impact on our minds and lives. 

Paul sets the tone. When writing his last epistle and near death, he begs Timothy, "Bring me the books, especially the parchments."  Dr. Charles Ryrie expounds on Paul's request:

"What were these books which Paul so greatly desired? Exegetical and historical works on the Old Testament, and undoubtedly nonreligious but nonetheless great literature of the world, for we know that Paul was acquainted with such.  

"Now this is a most intriguing request to my way of thinking for many reasons. First, here is a widely traveled missionary who felt the need for a personal library. Second, here is the great homiletician who had barrels full of sermons and little prospect of preaching them who still needed to read and study. Third, here is a man who was not content merely with a file full of notes or a library full of books unless they were used. Fourth, here is the man who under the superintendence of the Holy Spirit wrote a fifth of the inspired books of the Bible but who still sensed his need for learning from the writings of mere men. 

"I think every student and preacher should often remind himself of the well-chosen, though sarcastic, words of Charles Haddon Spurgeon who said: 'In order to be able to expound the Scriptures, and as an aid to your pulpit studies, you will need to be familiar with the commentators: a glorious army, let me tell you, whose acquaintance will be your delight and profit. Of course, you are not such wiseacres as to think or say that you can expound Scripture without assistance from the works of divines and learned men who have labored before you in the field of exposition. If you are of that opinion, pray to remain so, for you are not worth the trouble of conversion, and like a little coterie who think with you, would resent the attempt as an insult to your infallibility. It seems odd, that certain men who talk so much of what the Holy Spirit reveals to themselves, should think so little of what He has revealed to others.'

"And finally, Paul’s example reminds all of us not to neglect the ancients. Do not by-pass the worthies of yesterday for the lessers or even greats of today. I shall never forget the thrill when I began to study in the National Library of Scotland. It was surpassed perhaps only by the occasions when I used

". . . books so necessary, [yet] the most important thing in Paul’s mind was the parchments. Most especially, he says, using superlative and giving top priority to these parchments. What were they? Parchments were dressed skins used for writing which were first made at Pergamum. That they were used in the first century and what they were used for is attested to by no less an authority than Sir Frederic Kenyon. He declares: 'It is true that skins had been used for the reception of writing in Palestine and elsewhere at an earlier date, and from the tradition recorded in the Talmud, which required all synagogue rolls to be so written, it is fair to conclude that the Old Testament books were habitually written on skins in the first century.'

Thus although papyrus was the common material used for writing, parchment was reserved for important and precious documents, like the Scriptures. The parchments which Paul was calling for, then, were his own personal copies of Old Testament books and perhaps some New Testament fragments. These had undoubtedly been carefully collected over the years and were probably annotated in the margins by his own hand. We who can buy a Bible in any dime store can scarcely appreciate how valuable these were to Paul, though anyone who has had to discard a favorite Bible which he has carefully marked for many years can begin to understand. One thing is perfectly clear: Paul considered the sacred Scriptures his most important possession. Do you?"


 

Friday, December 21, 2018

CLINTON, TRUMP, AND ARISTOTLE


According to a recent survey, one of the main reasons that Christian youth leave their churches once they're on their own is because of seeing the lack of credibility in Christian adults. To say it another way, the reason they take leave of the churches of their raising is hypocracy among the grown-ups they've respected.

Before we dismiss this reason out of hand, let's think about it.

Aristotle wrote a guide for public speakers on the subject of persuasion. He said that there are three elements to persuading the listener: 1) the speaker must have a message; 2) the speaker must have a passion for his message; and 3) the speaker must have personal credibility. It's that credibility that leaves no room for hypocracy.

Historically, the greatest example of hypocrisy occurred in a garden, the one called Gethsemane, when Judas betrayed the Lord with a kiss of greeting as if they were friends. Since then, because of such heinous hypocracy, people haven't named their sons "Judas" in over 2,000 years.

In 1998, a writer wrote about a scandal that had erupted about Bill Clinton in the Wall Street Journal: “If he will lie to or mislead his wife and daughter, those with whom he is most intimate, what will prevent him from doing the same to the American public? The private acts of any person are never done in secret. God sees and judges all sin, and while He seeks to restore the offender with love and grace, He does not necessarily remove all the consequences of our sin.”

Those are wise words, words that made the reader think back then when the moral scandal blew up that shocked the nation. But there were those who took an opposite stance about the immoral matter by writing, "That’s for him and his wife to deal with," and going on to tell us, "It's nobody's business."

However, recently scandalous allegations have erupted against the current President, Donald Trump. Writing about the scandal, one author said, “That’s for him and his wife to deal with, it's nobody's business."

OK. We've heard all of that before. But let's look again at the statement in 1998: "If he [Clinton] will lie to or mislead his wife and daughter, those with whom he is most intimate, what will prevent him from doing the same to the American public? The private acts of any person are never done in secret. God sees and judges all sin, and while He seeks to restore the offender with love and grace, He does not necessarily remove all the consequences of our sin.”

Now let's look again at a recent statement about President Trump in 2018: “That’s for him and his wife to deal with, it's nobody's business." We've heard that before, back in 1998.

But what's diffent is this: The statement about Clinton in '98 and the statement about Trump in 2018 were made by the same person. In 1998, the writer said one thing; in 2018, he said the opposite. Where's the credibility in that? In 1998, because the writer didn't like Clinton, he took the position that if he would lie to his family, he'd lie to us and we can't trust him. In 2018, because the same speaker likes Trump, now it becomes a private matter, which he said it wasn't in 1998.

So, what does all this have to do with Christianity and credibility? A great deal. The writer who wrote one thing in 1998 and the opposite in 2018 is Franklin Graham. There's an old saying, "Politics makes strange bedfellows." Or better yet, we might say, "Politics makes strange hypocrites."

Moral: Don't lose your credibility over politics.








Friday, December 14, 2018

KARL MARX FORGOT TO MENTION

Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud, and a host of other atheists are both clever and tricky. They have conveniently forgotten to mention something important. They all propagate the idea that humanity's belief in God is nothing more than wish fulfillment. What they mean by that is that we have an inner longing for God, a protecting, loving, benevolent God who is there to help us in trials, tribulations, and the buffetings of life in general. We have an inner need for such, so we wish one into existence. We invent one such god.

What would we Christians say about that? Three things, at least.

First, the God of the Bible isn't a god man would invent. Who would "invent" the concept of the Trinity? One God in three Persons, each with the same and equal essence? No, we would never think of such a God.

Second, mankind would not invent a god who saves the evilest of men by grace alone through faith alone. Every religion in the world is a testimony to the fact that man can only conceive of a god who saves through a person's production of enough good works.

Third, yes, the God of the Bible is loving, protective, and prayer-answering. But He's also righteous, holy, and just, so much so that He cannot and will not overlook our sin. He won't overlook our sin, the Bible says, to the point of His coming in judgment one day and holding man accountable for rejecting His Son. That's not a god we would wish for. That's a god we would flee.

But that's not all the atheistic warriors have neglected to mention. They ignore the proverbial saying,  "What's sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander, meaning, what applies to one, applies to the other. An example of the proverbial statement is this sentence: "After her husband went off with his fishing buddies for a week, she decided to take a vacation without him-what's sauce for the goose, you know."

There is also in man an intense desire NOT to be held accountable for anything. He seeks a way out of judgment, calling sin nothing more than "oversights," "mistakes," and due to heredity or environment. After all, if there is no God, then there's no absolute standard to define sin and there's no accountability.

So, could not atheism simply be a wish-fulfillment on the part of man, an intense desire to avoid judgment? Peter Hitchens, an atheist, was struck by an old painting depicting "The Last Judgment." The artist depicted naked men and women being cast headlong into hell. As Hitchens viewed the famous painting, he thought, "How do I know that's not going to happen--that it's not going to happen to me?" Thus began his quest into Christianity. He was essentially saying, "How do I know my philosophy that there is no God is simply a wish-fulfillment on my part?" Good question. Few ask it.

But this wish-fulfillment of an atheist has dire results. When the truth transcendent Being of a personal-infinite God is erased from a society, something must fill the spiritual vacuum. Something must become transcendent. In our society, the transcendent value is political correctness and diversity and all must worship at their altars. If they don't genuflect, the penalties are severe. That's what we're seeing here and now.

Atheism has consequences.

Friday, December 7, 2018

DON'T FENCE ME IN

I was in the midst of watching some exciting college football game (I remember neither the teams nor the score) when 7x70 commercials interrupted my concentration on the players, the referees, the quarter, the down, the yard line, and the coaches. Among the 490 commercials, I remember only one. It had the tagline, “Be Devoted.” It was promoting a jewelry store. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTi18xmMnwY)

I’ll let a professional group’s publication describe the ad: “Jared® Jewelers embraces change with a bold campaign via agency McKinney that celebrates love and devotion in a world where people of all backgrounds “Dare To Be Devoted.” Diverse representation is [an] essential part of the campaign, which was edited by Cut+Run’s Sean Fazende and Directed by Golden Heart Films’ Ryan Booth.

“The spots depict moments where couples are ‘daring to be devoted’ in ways that depart from what might be considered traditional. Roles reversed, reimagined, and reconstructed in moments of celebration both quiet and exuberant: a nightclub engagement; an unexpected moment of surprise in front of strangers; and a couple’s love creating a blended family in a morning campsite proposal.”

All of the “spots” had their problems in my opinion ( the reference to the “nightclub engagement” is quite the understatement)  but the one telling the viewer “to be devoted  by means of a surprise move in front of strangers” was also especially troubling—it showed a young woman on bended knee proudly showing an engagement ring in its open case in public, proposing to her boyfriend. (You read that correctly; a woman proposing marriage to a man.) He accepts, puts the ring on his finger, and boldly holds it up in front of strangers. (In real life, I hope the man would feel silly with a diamond engagement ring on his finger.) It is, as the above article states, a “role reversal.” But, is it more than that? Can it be dismissed with words so simple?

Let’s compare the traditional role of the man on bended knee offering an engagement ring to a woman as a proposal of marriage which she may accept or reject to a fence. A proposal is just that: it is an offer, an asking of permission. In this case, it is the man asking the permission of the woman to enter into the most intimate of relationships with her for the rest of her life.

Such a traditional proposal illustrates the elevation of the woman to a position of respect and honor. It's the honoring of her "Yes," and her "No." The traditional proposal is a statement: "a woman's consent is valued more than a man's desire." (David Marcus) There are fences around marriage, erected around the divine institution (Gen. 2) in order to sanctify it. They're important. The fences aren't just for us; we're to erect them and pass them on to the next generation.

Yet, it is in the fallen nature of man to have an inborn desire to tear down the fences godly generations have erected to protect God's institution of marriage as sacred. Although on a different subject and taken out of context, the theme song of the human race since the Fall is "Don't Fence Me In," sung with a clenched fist pointed heavenward. Fallen man doesn't like to see his desires and plans twarted. But we must be careful.  G. K. Chesterton said, "Don't ever take a fence down until you know the reason it was put up."

Friday, November 30, 2018

APPLYING A FOUR-YEAR BANDAGE

There was once a candidate for sheriff in Alabama (where else?) who, when a reporter asked him why he was running for the office, replied, "There's a lot of graft associated with the position and I want to get me some." At least he was honest.

I hope you vote whenever the occasion arises; I always do but I always refuse to wear the "I Voted" sticker with a Georgia peach on it, because, compared to those at the Alamo, at Bunker Hill, at Valley Forge, and at Gettysburg, I've done nothing commendable, so for me to say, by means of a sticker on my shirt, "LOOK AT ME. I VOTED!" That would be a travesty. But that's just me. You do what your conscience dictates.

WE NEED FEWER PEOPLE VOTING

That aside, my opinion is that we need less and fewer people voting, but you're different, I hope you always vote. That's because most people have a pitiful knowledge of the Constitution, and in fact, don't care about it like you do. That said, let's look at voting from a biblical perspective and ask, "In the long run, will voting solve the problem(s)?"

I want to suggest to you that the answer the Bible would give is, "No." Let's examine my suggestion for a moment. To do so, let's set up a scenario: let's say that you vote for just the right people and your people get into the corridors of power. Now they're in control. You like that, and rightly so. Things are looking good. Your candidates do their job and they vote to put an end to what you've wanted stopped for decades--they make abortion illegal. All abortions cease and desist.

Part of this scenario is that once they vote to declare abortion illegal, mobs take to the streets. The mobs march with placards demanding their right to choose. There are uproars across the land. 49% of the people are furious. The mobs harass the candidates you and 51% of the other folks elected. They vandalize and destroy their property, they surround their homes and chant their slogans at them all night long, and hordes of them follow their every public movement, making it impossible for them to even eat in peace. They are bitter to the max. They don't stop.

Then, four years later, it happens: the 49% has become 51% and they take control. They now have entered the corridors of power. They hold the gavel. They begin to reverse everything your political party and your elected candidates have done the last four years.

The Bible explains what's happened, or better yet, what's not happened: voting can't change the human heart. Voting, at best, is a temporary solution. It's a band-aid. One party gets "in," the party that's out works hard and a few years later gets in and changes everything. The newly party that's out starts working immediately to get back in so they can reverse things once they get in. The cycle continues ad infinitum.

But there's one thing and only one thing that's not a temporary solution and that's Christian evangelism and discipleship, that is through Spirit-worked changes in the heart and through the teaching and understanding of the Word of God, God changes the human heart.

SO . . .

By all means, vote every time you can, but when you cast that ballot, remember, you're administering a bandage to buy time to evangelize and make disciples.

Saturday, November 24, 2018

A VERY UNHAPPY THANKSGIVING

There has been a text that troubled me for a while until I started to see people live it out, like live it out right now, today. But before we get to that, let's go back to one of the greatest men that ever lived--George Washington.

One of the things President Washington did was to issue a proclamation declaring a national day of Thanksgiving, a proclamation which he began with these words on October 3, 1789:

"By the President of the United States of America. a Proclamation.

"Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor—and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me “to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.”

Our country had just come through the Revolutionary War during which they had sacrificed their lives and treasure to defeat the most powerful nation on earth. It was a time of deprivation and hardship for them, the likes of which none of us living today have experienced or even understand. No one living, military or civilian in America, has fought a seven-year war on their homefront, battling day in and day out in rags, in the snow and ice, and with meager supplies, fighting an invasion from a nation far more powerful than they.

And, yet we read of that proclamation from a nation grateful to God.

Now we come to our day and find that we've turned into an ungrateful nation, a nation which, of all things, contains a growing population of ingrates who are ashamed of America, its present and its past. Our universities and public schools are mass-producing a generation of unthankful people.

The arrogant ingrates tear down statues of great men, change the names of streets, and remove the great history of our country from textbooks. In addition, they are in a perpetual and sometimes violent pique over something and anything, engaging in high-tech lynchings should anyone dare to violate the canons of their groupthink, demanding an open and public apology and humiliation from the violator.  (e. g. the forced apology of astronaut Scott Kelly)

And this brings us to a Scripture in the early portion of the greatest letter ever written, the book of Romans: "For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened." (1:21) That "nor give thanks" is in the portion of Romans which lists the symptoms of a society that turns away from God and His Word and one of those symptoms is a heart the refuses to give thanks. In addition, they become "insolent" and "arrogant" as evidenced by their sitting on their imagined Mt. Olympus, hurling thunderbolts down on such great men as Washington, Jefferson, and a host of others.

Romans 1:21 troubles me no more; we're living in it.

Friday, November 16, 2018

6+4+3=2

It may appear at first glance that mathematics is not a part of my skill set. Although that statement about my math skills is true, nonetheless the above formula is absolutely, totally, 100% correct. But before we get to that, let's look at the parable of The Pharisee and the Tax Collector.

By telling this parable, Jesus will correct the confidence the Pharisees were putting in their own righteousness. False doctrine must be corrected, especially if it’s a false gospel because a false gospel has never saved anyone. The story revolves around two men, one of whom is a Pharisee. 

To the Jews, the location of the prayer is important—the Temple. God’s special presence was in the Holy of Holies; God had commanded the people to assemble at the Temple from time to time, at certain times of the year. Therefore, the people thought that if you prayed in the Temple, God was more likely to hear you. Israel was to worship God in the Temple and prayer is a part of worship.
The other man is a tax collector, but to understand the difference in these two men, we have to go back to the culture in which they lived.  

The Pharisee was renowned for his dedication to the Law, for fasting two days of the week, for loud and public prayers, and for trying to keep the smallest details of the Jewish traditions. The Pharisee was a person of supreme religious confidence in himself. In fact, he admired himself very much. (Know any Christians like that—their speech betrays an admiration of themselves.) Some people are like the famous author who was talking to a friend, telling him that he had speaking engagements in D. C., NYC, and Philadelphia. Then he said to his friend, “Well, that’s enough about me, what do you think about my latest book?”

To get the feel of the people for the tax collectors, one word will suffice: “traitor.” The Jews looked upon them as traitors, those who worked for Rome and against the people. In WWII, then Hitler took over France, there were Frenchmen who cooperated with the Nazis in running the country. They were called, “collaborators.”

But to really get the pulse of the Jews for their countrymen who were tax collectors, let’s use another word: “Gestapo.” The Jewish tax collectors abused their own people for profit. They would charge the people above and beyond the tax rate Rome required and pocketed the excess for themselves. This is what Zacchaeus was doing until he met Christ.

The Pharisee in the story has a particular way he stands that indicates how much he admires himself. Self-righteousness and arrogance go hand in hand. He had come to believe that his righteousness set him head and shoulders above others. We see this in the way he stands and by what he prays as he thanks God that he’s not a “robber, and evildoer, and adulterer, or a tax collector.
 
He cites the two reasons why he’s righteous—he fasts two times a week and he tithes. Yet early in Jesus’ public ministry. In the Sermon on the Mount, He had stressed to the people that external practices do not count for a right standing with God. The right standing comes from the inner man, not an outward show of piety.

We would also note that the Pharisee wants the people in the Temple to know just how good he is, so he prays in such a way so that everyone can hear him.. By this we see that in his prayer, he’s not really worshipping God, but he’s praising himself. Jesus noted that the Pharisees love to pray so others can hear them. The Pharisee is obsessed with honoring, not God, but himself.

THE CONTRAST


Jesus contrasts the attitude of the tax collector with that of the Pharisee. Even his stance is different: he “stands afar off.” This indicates that he recognizes that he is unfit to stand before God, so he doesn’t even go inside the Temple. Not only that, but also, he would not look upward; he drops his head and lowers his eyes. In addition, he beats his chest as a sign of his contrition.
His prayer isn’t ornate; it’s to the point: “Oh, God, be merciful to me, a sinner.” This is something the Pharisee would not admit. By this one sentence, we see that he’s not asking God to overlook his sin; he wasn’t asking God to change His attitude toward sin or toward him.
 

THE ONE WORD

The word he uses for “merciful” is the same word we read in I Jn. 2:2: “propitiated.” The word means “satisfied.”


Because of this, Christ pronounces the man to be righteous. But this is not a prayer for those living after the Cross. As I John 2:2 says, God is now satisfied. He’s not satisfied with our righteousness, but with the death of His Son, and therefore, God is satisfied. The context of the prayer is pre-cross. After the death of Christ, God is satisfied because His righteous and holy demands have been all completely met in the death of His Son.

It's the historical context of the prayer that makes it an improper one today. There's no need to plead with God to be saved. He's been satisfied. The only requirement for salvation is "believe," not "plead."

Now to mathematics. If you had trouble understanding why the formula is correct, it's because you're placing it in the wrong context. The context isn't math. The proper context is baseball. On the baseball diamond, the positions of the players are assigned numbers as a means of keeping score as the game goes along. 6 represents the shortstop. 4 represents the second baseman and 3 represents the first baseman. So the formula is saying that a double play occurred when the shortstop (6) fielded the ball and threw it to the second baseman (4) who threw it to the first baseman (3) and that resulted in 2 outs.

Context is king!

Friday, November 9, 2018

THE COPTICS

Twenty-one Egyptians who were being held by Islamic extremists were executed on February 15, 2012. Decapitated. All right-thinking people the world over should have been outraged by what the Muslims did. Murdering people for their faith is sinful, regardless of their religion. No one should be executed for their faith.

Those executed were members of the Coptic faith, a group with ancient roots that go back, they contend, to Mark, the author of the second Gospel in the New Testament. They hold that Mark founded their church in 42 AD.  The executions were just one of many endured by the group throughout their long history, but they are in the news today because of such things happening as the barbaric aforementioned.

WHO ARE THE COPTS?

"Coptic" is a word meaning "Egyptian," and the word, as we read it in the news, is coupled with "Christian," that is, they are referred to as "Coptic Christians." We need to examine that term, especially the second word, "Christian." Are they? Are the Coptics Christians? To determine that issue, we have to look at their doctrine, not the newspapers.

The problem is that the secular world puts "Christian" on any group that says they are. But, if we're true to the Bible, we can't let the world give us the definition of "Christian." When we let the news reporting services define the word, the world thinks that Roman Catholism is the "Christian church" or at least part of it, and since Mormons call themselves "Christian," they must be Christians too. But the Bible detrmines who is and who isn't Christian.

So, what are some of the basic teachings of the Copts?

THE COPTIC DOCTRINE OF BAPTISM

The Copts believe that baptism is necessary for salvation and that a man, a woman, and a baby should be baptized. The Copts perform baptism by immersing the baby three times in sanctified water. The sacrament also involves a liturgy of prayer and anointing with oil. Under Levitical Law, the mother waits 40 days after the birth of a male and 80 days after the birth of a female to have the baby baptized.

In the case of adult baptism, the person undresses, enters the baptismal font up to their neck, and their head is dipped three times by the priest. (The priest stands behind a curtain while immersing the head of a woman.)

THE COPTIC DOCTRINE OF THE SAINTS

Copts venerate (not worship) saints and icons, which are images of saints and Christ painted on wood. The Coptics teach that saints act as intercessors for the prayers of the faithful.

THE COPTIC DOCTRINE OF SALVATION (SOTERIOLOGY)
Coptics hold that both God and man have roles in human salvation: God, through Christ's atoning death and resurrection, man, through good works, which are the fruits of faith. The summary of their soteriology is, as they say: 1. Faith. 2. Saving Sacraments: a. Baptism. b. Confirmation. c. Repentance & Confession. d. Eucharist. 3. Good Works.

They observe the sacraments: seven sacraments: baptism, confirmation, confession (penance), the Eucharist (Communion), matrimony, unction of the sick, and ordination. Sacraments are considered a way to receive God's grace, the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and remission of sins.

THE COPTIC CHURCH (ECCLESIOLOGY)

The Copts have their own patriarch, Pope Tawadros II of Alexandria, took office in 2012 after having his name picked from a glass chalice by a blindfolded boy because a boy represents purity.

The Coptics, not Roman Catholocism, developed the institution of monasticism. They state: "It began in the mountains, 450 feet above the sands. The monks believe it was in it was in a tiny cave that St. Anthony, the first monk, followed God’s instructions to seclude himself in the desert. Every night around midnight, monks and novices climb through the darkness to pray here and honor his memory. It was very crowded and very cold."

EVALUATION OF THE COPTIC THEOLOGY

All of the above are a far cry from John 3:16 and the hundred-plus other New Testament texts that state salvation is through faith in Christ alone and that faith, by its very definition, is apart from works (Romans 4:4-5)

Conclusion: The Copts are an unevangelized people group. 




Friday, November 2, 2018

SATAN'S RALLY CRY

There have been many famous rally cries throughout history. The Texans raised one, birthed in March 1836, when, as they fought against Mexico, shouted, "Remember the Alamo!" "Fifty-four Forty or Fight!" was the famous 1844 presidential campaign slogan of James Knox Polk that contributed to his unexpected victory. The slogan was named after a line of latitude that served as the northern border of Oregon at 54 degrees 40 minutes.

The American Revolution gave rise to dozens of rallying cries—“No Taxation Without Representation;” “Join or Die;” “Don’t Tread on Me”—but few had as significant an impact as “Liberty or Death.” The phrase first appeared in a March 1775 address by Patrick Henry, in which he said, "I know not what course others may take, but give me liberty or give me death!"

Satan has his rally cry and those who are Bible-tuned heard it loud and clear last week. Satan's rally cry is 4,000 years old, beginning with God's sovereign choice of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and he's relentless in repeating it, whether in print or shouted verbally. In such repetition, he's indefatigable. The Egyptian pharaoh shouted it as did Haman.

Today, the cry still rings throughout the world: In July 2017, "a California imam delivered a ferociously anti-Semitic sermon from his podium at the Islamic Center of Davis, calling for Allah to 'annihilate' the Jews 'down to the very last one."” "All Jews must die" was rally cry the murderer of 11 Jews attending a synagogue service in Pittsburgh shouted, not once, but over and over again just this month.

The shout will be on other during the Great Tribulation when the Anti-Christ reveals himself to be Satan's fool and tool to annihilate God's chosen people, as he tries, but will fail, to eliminate the people to whom God must fulfill the promises of the Abrahamic, Palestinian, Davidic, and New Covenants.

It's a rally cry doomed for failure. Ps. 87:35-37 says so: "Once I have sworn by My holiness;
I will not lie to David. His descendants shall endure forever and his throne as the sun before Me. It shall be established forever like the moon, and the witness in the sky is faithful."



Friday, October 26, 2018

THE ABOLITION OF "OF COURSE" AND "EVERYBODY KNOWS"

General Douglas MacArthur said something that needs our close attention: "History fails to record a single precedent in which nations subject to moral decay have not passed into political and economic decline. There has been either a spiritual awakening to overcome the moral lapse or a progressive deterioration leading to ultimate national disaster."

This is similar to what John Adams, Founding Father and second President of the United States said: "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other."

THE MORAL LAW

There have been two anchors in America which have held our country morally steady to the extent that they have prevented prevented MacArthur's political and economic decline from happening here. As Romans 2 points out, there is in every person a moral law written in their hearts: "For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them."

Paul restates this truth in Romans 13: "For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil," and "Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.

Because of the moral law written even in the heart of the unbeliever, unbelieving government officials know what's good and right and they understand what's evil and wrong. They may pervert this moral law, but they know right from wrong.

THE PERMEATION

Then America has had the historical blessing of a Bible saturation. We see this to the extent of the Bible's permeating the vocabulary of the American when he talks about how as a youth, he was a "prodigal son," or how he was helped by a "good Samaritan." He describes making a narrow escape "by the skin of my teeth" (Job 19:20). He may deal with a stubborn man and say, despairingly, "A leopard can't change his spots" (Jeremiah 13:23). Or he may speak of some burden as "That's my cross I to bear." He may devote many an hour to some charitable work, saying, "That's my labor of love." All are allusions from the Bible.

ISRAEL'S LAW

But more than that saturation and more than the moral law, The Ten Commandments with their "Thou shalt nots" have planted deep roots in the American heart, even to the extent that a huge number mistakenly think that their keeping of the Big Ten gets them into heaven (Contra Gal. 2:16). Not only that, but biblical concepts soaked the American culture--accountability to God, judgment to come, a holy, personal God, the human being created in the image and likeness of God, a hell to shun, and a heaven to gain.

 BACK TO MAC AND JOHN

But we're living in a post-Christian decay of darkness in America which is so thick that we're seeing the abolition of "of course" and "everybody knows." For example it was not so long ago that Americans would say, "Of course there are two genders. Everybody knows that."

Not long ago, Americans said, "Of course, marriage is between one man and one woman. Everybody knows that."

Not long ago, we said, "Of course it's murder to kill babies; everybody knows that.

NOT SO NOW

Not so today. The moral law is violated with no fear of God before their eyes. The Bible soaking has evaporated. Those topics mentioned above don't come with an "of course" and an "everybody knows that." They're debated, demonstrated against, and mobs form to punish and ruin those who believe and dare to say, "Of course" and "Everybody knows that."We watch as the prediction of MacArthur comes true and John Adam's whale goes through the net.

This is the time when the Christian, dressed in the armor of light, shines in the darkness as never before, making disciples and snatching brands from the burning.






Friday, October 19, 2018

HE SAID, "IT'S CREEPY"

In June of 2018, Dan Piepenbring, writing in "The New Yorker," reported that he had spotted a "creepy infiltration" of his city and felt the need to warn the population.

Infiltrate? That's a strong word. I looked it up in the dictionary and found that it means, "to move into (an organization, country, territory, or the like) surreptitiously and gradually, especially with hostile intent." 

Then I looked up "surreptitiously" and saw that it means, "done, made, etc., in a secret or unauthorized or clandestine manner." 

This led to one more excursion into the dictionary--to make certain of the meaning of "clandestine: "characterized by, done in, or executed with secrecy or concealment, especially for purposes of subversion or deception; private or surreptitious." 

"Clandestine," that's a very strong word, a word that implies evil intent. It must be something so terrible that was happening that the erudite reporter needed to warn the citizens of the Big Apple, so I read farther and found that NYC was being infiltrated by a building which housed a commercial venture: Chick-fil-A, the largest one in the world.

Chick-fil-A? Hostile? Subversive? Secretive? Then I looked up the goals of the company based in Atlanta and learned that the corporation has a mission statement: To glorify God by being a faithful steward of all that is entrusted to us. To have a positive influence on all who come in contact with Chick-fil-A.” That's it. 

That's "creepy?" That is its open, not secret, purpose statement. Is glorifying God creepy? Is being a faithful steward creepy? Is having a positive influence on all who come in contact with the company creepy, hostile, and subversive?

Ah, you and I know what's really going on. The writer is hostile to the company because it holds to the absolute moral values and standards (particularly for marriage) in the Bible. 

I felt the need to rush to the dictionary to make sure I understood what "creepy" means and found that it's the, "having or causing a creeping sensation of the skin, as from horror or fear." Holding to the biblical definition of marriage produces a sensation of the skin, a horror, or a fear? From the reporter's article, I suppose it does produce such skin-crawling terror in him. Let's give him the benefit of the doubt and suggest that he's not being hyperbolic.

Well, this what our educated elite, our mass media, our celebrities have come to--the state of Romans 1:22: "Professing to be wise, they became fools . . ."


Friday, October 12, 2018

A SAD SIGHT

Of all the evangelists in American history, Billy Sunday was the most flamboyant and the one with the least content. He used no text. He didn’t even open a Bible. What he did instead was to use certain memorized phrases and word pictures that he gave out in Gatling-gun succession to keep the audience listening.

He said: "Lord save us from off-handed, flabby-cheeked, brittle-boned, weak-kneed, thin-skinned, pliable, plastic, spineless, effeminate, ossified three-karat Christianity."

His most famous quote concerns his life-long battle against sin: "I’m against sin. I’ll kick it as long as I have a foot. I’ll fight it as long as I have a fist. I’ll butt it as long as I have a head. I’ll bite it as long as I’ve got a tooth. And when I’m old and fistless and footless and toothless, I’ll gum it till I go home to Glory and it goes home to perdition."

As he got going with his message, he would sometimes throw off his collar, coat, and tie; he would roll up his sleeves; and adopt a pugilistic stance. He might shake his fists in the faces of local clergymen as he condemned the ineffectiveness of their churches or point an accusing finger at his audience as he recited a list of sins in the American society.

It was a performance, a show. As thousands of the mesmerized watched, Sunday, a former major league center fielder, would run, jump, throw invisible baseballs, hit imaginary home runs, slide for home plate, and shout like an umpire, “You’re out,” as he announced God’s judgment on the unsaved.

One reporter estimated that as he preached, Sunday traveled a mile during each sermon and more than 100 miles in every campaign. Indefatigable.

BUT THEN IT HAPPENED

But he began to preach on social topics and to blend his gospel appeal with Prohibition and honest government. His sermons were about draining the swamp and the evils of alcohol. His campaigns became crusades against social evils and in this way he went beyond his contemporaries and even his predecessors. He became more of a performer in his platform gymnastics, offering entertainment as a bait to lure in the unsaved.

During the First World War, Sunday invaded the major cities of the nation, attacking New York in 1917 at the peak of his career and the peak of the war fever against the Germany. President Wilson, who locking people up for criticizing the war, invited him to the White House to ask his personal help on behalf of the war effort because, as he said to Sunday, “You have the ear of the people.” He got that help and the ministry of the evangelist became a tool of the state

Thus, his evangelism was cemented to the state and that always changes the gospel into no gospel at all. His preaching dealt with how many gallons of beer America consumed, how much money the government would get from a tax on liquor and what a profitable industry the liquor industry was. He preached about the deleterious effects of the saloon--no food for the family, no money to pay the rent, children in rags. 

Billy Sunday sold hundreds of thousands of dollars’ worth of war bonds. His gospel morphed into "Take your stand for God and country." People responded to such appeals by multiplied thousands.

WHEN THE INEVITABLE CAME

But what happened when, inevitably, those two issues, Prohibition and WWI, were settled? What happened to Billy Sunday when Prohibition became the 18th Amendment to the Constitution and Germany surrendered. Billy Sunday’s work began to decline. He was a messenger without a message. The evangelist had made the mistake of becoming too contemporaneous, of identifying the gospel too closely with social issues which were bound to change. He put himself out of the ministry. He had become a Johnny one-note, the inevitable death-knell for a preacher.

By the time Sunday returned to Detroit for another crusade in 1934, the nation's grand experiment with Prohibition had ended. And, the lawlessness and excesses of that era left a bitter taste with many.

Sunday's 1934 campaign was a disappointment. He attracted small crowds and even smaller donations from Detroiters struggling through the depths of the Great Depression. This time he only collected $2,000.


WHAT BILL SUNDAY FORGOT

Paul said, “I preach Christ and Him crucified.” He commanded Timothy, “Preach the Word.” Those texts came to have no impact on Billy Sunday. His messages became devoid of biblical content and the gospel got wrapped in the American flag.

At the end, Billy Sunday was a sad sight to behold.

Friday, October 5, 2018

THE SUCCESS OF AMERICAN PUBLIC EDUCATION

All over America we hear, "The public schools are failing. The public schools are failing." But is that the case? Really? Let's examine the goals and purposes of public education.

As we begin our examination, we start with the premise that education has and has always had an agenda. If we were to ask, "What is the purpose of education," most parents would answer, "To make a good living." But would our founding ancestors have agreed? No.

When the Puritans established the first schools in America, they had an agenda for those schools as stated in what's called "The Old Deluder Act of 1647: "Satan tries to keep men from the knowledge of the Scriptures, as in former times by keeping them in an unknown tongue."

The original settlers of Massachusetts believed that children needed to learn how to read the Bible to receive salvation. That was the agenda for the requirement that any Massachusetts town with more than 50 households was to appoint a town teacher. Towns with more than 100 households were required to set up a grammar school for the town's children.

The 1636 rules of Harvard included the following declaration: Let every student be plainly instructed and earnestly pressed to consider well the main end of his life and studies is to know God and Jesus Christ which is eternal life (John 17.3) and therefore to lay Christ in the bottom as the only foundation of all sound knowledge and learning. And seeing the Lord only giveth wisdom, let every one seriously set himself by prayer in secret to seek it of Him (Prov. 2,3). Every one shall so exercise himself in reading the Scriptures twice a day that he shall be ready to give such an account of his proficiency therein."

Over a century after the founding of Harvard in , the state constitution of Massachusetts reiterated the original and continuing purpose of the institution:

"Article I. Whereas our wise and pious ancestors, so early as the year one thousand six hundred and thirty-six, laid the foundation of Harvard College, in which university many persons of great eminence have, by the blessing of God, been initiated in those arts and sciences, which qualified them for public employments, both in church and state: and whereas the encouragement of arts and sciences, and all good literature, tends to the honor of God, the advantage of the Christian religion, and the great benefit of this and the other United States of America—it is declared, that the President and Fellows of Harvard College...shall have, hold, use, exercise and enjoy, all the powers...which they now have or are entitled to have."

It goes without saying that The Old Deluder Act and the intent of a Harvard education are no longer the purpose of American public education. So, what is the agenda? 

The purpose of American education today is to produce the rationalist, an adult whose basic presupposition is that the human being, unaided, can come to a knowledge of the truth. As a result, the Bible is banned from academia--A Wisconsin student has sued her college after she was barred from handing out "Jesus Loves You" Bible-themed Valentine's Day cards last February and the Wisconsin public university system removed all its copies of the Gideon Bible from the campus conference center after the Freedom From Religion Foundation complained of a constitutional violation. These are only two examples; time and space preclude a 360 degree look at the evidence.

The finished product is a rationalist who holds to evolution as the origin of man, who holds to relativism with no absolute standards of right and wrong. The process of American education is to leave God and His Word out. The end result is the rationalist.

On that basis, we can say that American education is a roaring success.

Friday, September 28, 2018

A BLACK FLAG WAR

We live in a society that's hesitant to be critical of any other culture, no matter its darkened depravity. We're in the miasma of moral relativism, an atmosphere in which all cultures are equal, none superior, none inferior to the other. No judgments, please.

ROUSSEAU STARTED THIS MESS

In this climate, the American Indian is viewed by the term Rousseau invented, "the noble savage," which re-enforces the idea that the Indian was the oppressed victim without fault. But we need a more balanced picture, not one in which history is air brushed.

ENTER THE INDIAN

When the settlers moved west into Texas territory, they encountered the Karankawa tribe and they were something to behold. To look at them was to see men who were strikingly tall, between six and almost seven feet. But there was more to their appearance than qualifying for any NBA basketball team.

The Karankawa were heavily tattooed, heavily pierced, and painted. The nomadic tribe, held the islands for the most part in south Texas. The territory they held was from the west end of Galveston Island down the coast to the mouth of the Rio Grande and inland about 25-65 miles depending on the region.

But hold on. You may be thinking that you can't judge a noble book by its ignoble cover, but in their case you could: they were degenerate cannibals. They weren't the innocent and the noble, savage or otherwise. The Spaniards and the Americans who met and had to deal with them said that they were superb hunters, fisherman, warriors, and longbow archery experts. In short, they were a powerful enemy to anyone wishing to take their prime hunting hunting grounds which they had taken from some other tribe.

DEGENERATE TO THE CORE

But hold on again: In 1768, a Spanish padre gave details to their flesh eating ceremonies. The "savages" [he hadn't heard that you shouldn't call another culture "savage"] would lash a captive to a stake and then, dancing around the sacrifice, they would dart in, slice off a piece of flesh with a sharp blade, then roast it in front of the victim, in an already prepared campfire. Then they would devour it, as the victim watched in horror at the consumption of himself, before his very eyes.

NO WAY

Now, enter the 19th century settlers. There was no way, absolutely no way, the Karankawa and the Americans or the Spanish or the French could coexist in peaceful and harmonious relations. Neither group could reason with the other. Neither group could educate the other. From the settlers' point of view, it was, it had to be, "Kill the Karankawa." If they didn't they, their wives, and their children would be eaten in some ritual from hell.

WE'VE HEARD THIS BEFORE

Wait a minute. This sounds similar to what Israel faced as they entered the Promised Land. Instead of the Karankawa, they faced the Canaanites whom they described as "giants." They faced the depravity of the Canaanites whose religious practices were just as depraved as the Karankawa, since the Canaanites burned their own children alive as sacrifices.

According to God's command to Israel, there was to be no co-existence; there couldn't be. Detente wouldn't work. Reason wouldn't cut it with the Canaanites.The degenerate mothers would raise degenerate children to be warriors to exterminate the Jews, so it was to be a black flag war. That's a war in which the you attack the enemy ferociously and never let up, always trying to flank the enemy, never letting him sleep, never letting him rest. Israel was to raise the black flag and hold it high. Now, we know why.

We can understand the rationale behind God's command because our ancestors faced similar circumstances.

Friday, September 21, 2018

COMANCHES

The Comanches were the fiercest and most feared of the Indian tribes. Even the Apaches asked for protection from them. No one, no tribe, no band of settlers could stop them. (So much for the crazy concept of "The Noble Savage" invented by Rousseau in the mid-eighteenth century in order to glorify the "natural" life.)

But the Comanches were admired for one thing--their horsemanship. The Spanish who came to America introduced horses into North America and the Comanches developed equestrian skills without peer.

They trained their children to be horsemen at an early age. They learned to ride and ride fast and well, even being able to pick up objects from the ground as they rode by. This ability made them even more fearsome as they rode, plundered, and massacred their way over the American Plains in search of buffalo.

There's a credible source about what the Comanches trained their horses to do and it had to do with the animals' ears. Somehow, in some way, by some method, they trained horses to be able to twitch their ears alternately, back and forth. But they didn't teach them to do this for a dog and pony show; they taught them to do it to save their lives, Comanche lives. Here's how it worked:

When they would kill a buffalo, the Comanches would begin the work of butchering it right there on the field. They used every part of the buffalo, even its bones. It was at that time, that they were most vulnerable to a wild animal or an enemy who came upon them. So, what they'd trained the horses to do was to begin to twitch their ears when any perceived enemy was coming their way. One historian has written that this twitch saved many a Comanche life. We might say that the Comanches didn't invent the watchdog, but the watchhorse.

In the same way, God has given elders to the local churches, not only to teach and to be examples to the flock, but to be watchhorses to warn the believers when an enemy, a false teacher or a false doctrine comes near.

The false teacher may come as an author whose latest book disseminates a false gospel which tells people that to be saved they must "turn from their sin(s)," and the watchhorses of the local churches  label that idea, "Mission Impossible;" no one can turn from their sins. The watchhorses are like Paul in the sense that the called out the false teachers, even to the point of naming names.

The elders' ears begin to twitch when they sense a false teacher has arisen within the group or is a visiting speaker whose ideas, upon entering their ears, cause their ears to begin to twitch because the doctrine rings false, not squaring with the Word. Titus 1 describes the function of the watchhorses:

[They are to be] holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he [an elder] will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict. For there are many rebellious men, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, who must be silenced because they are upsetting whole families, teaching things they should not teach for the sake of sordid gain. One of themselves, a prophet of their own, said, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.” This testimony is true. For this reason reprove them severely so that they may be sound in the faith . . .

Every local church needs watchhorses, for as the New Testament says, "They watch over your souls." Be grateful for them.


Friday, September 14, 2018

REMEMBER THE ALAMO

There's this Texas history textbook for 7th-grade students which includes the following 16 words as a unit title: "The siege of the Alamo and all of the heroic defenders who gave their lives there."

The unit title is a reference to Travis, Bowie, and Crockett who are included in the approximately 200 heroes who knew they were going to die and did die to free Texas from the despotic rule of Mexico's Santa Anna. It was their defense of the mission Alamo which gave Sam Houston the time he needed to raise the troops and win the decisive Battle of San Jacinto. Because of what the defenders of the Alamo did, Santa Anna's victory that March day in 1836 was a pyrrhic one.

HISTORY DOWN ORWELL'S MEMORY HOLE

But that title has upset working groups of educators and historians, tasked with streamlining social studies standards. They were so upset that they've advised the Texas Board of Education to remove  “heroic” from the title to describe the acts at the Alamo, because the word is “value-loaded,” according to a draft of their recommendations.

Walter L. Buenger, a professor of history at the University of Texas called the popular depiction of the Alamo “exceptionally simplistic," saying, "In some minds, [the defenders] were not heroic but vainglorious, foolish, and counterproductive."

All one has to do is to read Walter Lord's book, A Time to Stand and the reader will learn that "heroic" isn't a strong enough word to describe what those men did in their sacrifice. 

WHAT'S HAPPENING?

What's happening is that when a culture rejects the Bible and its Author, it pays the high price of losing moral categories. It becomes a society in which there's no objective, absolute right or wrong. It becomes a society in which a committee of bureaucrats must censor "heroic," because writing that such men were "heroic" is a value judgment and just who are you to make such a judgment, anyway? How dare you!

In 1970, Ray Stephens sang a song, which, although he probably didn't realize it, propagated the idea that moral categories are gone. The song was "Everything is Beautiful." But if everything is beautiful, then nothing--sin, human trafficking, genocide, Satan--is ugly, and the moral categories, including "heroic," are gone. 

Under divine inspiration, Solomon saw this clearly when he wrote in Proverbs, "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; Fools despise wisdom and instruction." "The fear of the Lord" a positive response to God and His Word. Once that positive response is gone, moral understanding is gone.

And to say that their actions were "vainglorious," is that not a "value-charged" word as well? Once the moral categories are down the memory hole, how do you get off this merry-go-round?

Moral understanding has therefore vanished to the extent that we lose the category of "hero." That means that there are no heroes. In swamp of moral relativism, who's to say who is and who isn't? To say the 200 men at the Alamo were heroes is to make a value judgment and such an assessment is o-u-t, out, in a culture without the Bible.

Sad, isn't it. We're getting the culture we want. So said Paul in Romans 1:24: "Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts . . ."



Friday, September 7, 2018

HOW DARK WAS IT?

The Dark Ages is a term applied to the years 476 AD to 1300 (ca.) because during that era, there was, as one history wrote, a lack of any intellectual progress and a surplus of brutality. The Dark Ages were a time when Europe fell into a swamp dominated by the iron fist of the Roman Catholic Church.

LOCK IT UP!

The Dark Ages were a time when the the Roman Catholic Church locked the Bible away from the common man and even if he somehow could come across a Bible, he couldn't read it because it was in Latin. He was dependent on what his priest told him the Bible both said and meant.

Roman Catholic theology of the Dark Ages manipulated the people through fear and hope, a control that made the Dark Ages exceptionally dark as the following narrative will attest.  Countries and cultures go dark where there is no Bible.

 If we begin with what the people were taught about the Trinity, we find that they were told that God the Father was all about thunder and judgment. But His Son was One who could intercede on one's behalf and make His Father not quite so stern and unbending.

But the Son might be found to be implacable at times, so He would need to be softened up by Mary, His mother. And if the supplicant played his cards right, Mary might cheat God the Father and the Devil on behalf of the one who prayed to her. But if Mary was remote at the time, there was Anna, her mother, and a person could go to her for help. Wait. What?

THE BIBLE NOWHERE SAYS

Is any of that in the Bible? Oh, we forget; as far as the people were concerned, there was no Bible where the common man might go and search and find the truth. It had been locked away. If he could have gone to the Book, he would have found that he was being fed lie after lie after lie by the very ones he trusted. That's why hierarchy of the swamp fought hammer and tong to keep the Bible locked up.

But if the could only have a Bible he could read, he would find the truth that God the Father and God the Son have the same essence of love, holiness, and justice (et al.); the truth that Mary is not an intercessor; the truth that Mary was not a perpetual virgin (from Jerome, 383 AD); the truth that Mary was not bodily taken to heaven (Defined as dogma by the Pope; Nov. 1950); the truth that Anna had not and has no part in such a  lineup. They would come to understand that Mary was not and is not the Queen of heaven, has no exalted place in Heaven, and does not enjoy the closest access to Jesus and God the Father. Such concepts are nowhere taught in Scripture.

THE DAWN

The Roman Catholic system's hold on the people of Europe and England began to shatter when Tyndale, Wycliffe, and Luther took up their quills and began to translate the Bible for the common Englishman and German.

As those three men began to move quills across paper, the Light was coming into the Dark Ages!



Friday, August 31, 2018

FROM FUNERALS TO FOOTBALL

Several people in a church received invitations from a fellow member of the church to attend a meeting during which they would learn how to cut their income taxes and do so legally. Who isn't interested in that? Bring it on! But when the people got there and the presentation began, they realized that they'd been manipulated, tricked, and used; it really wasn't a meeting about saving money on their taxes.

 It was a meeting to entice fellow church members to sign up to make money for themselves and, of course, for their host and hostess, by selling products for a company.

A FUNERAL

Remember the televised funeral for Sen. Ted Kennedy? It wasn't a funeral--it was a political rally disguised as a funeral, a rally to call for nationalized health care.

Then, in August, 2018, we read about and saw on television, another service, this time for a Republican: "John McCain’s daughter and two former presidents led a public rebuke of President Donald Trump’s divisive politics at the late senator’s memorial service Saturday in a call for a return to civility among the nation’s leaders.

"The nearly three-hour service at the Washington National Cathedral was a remarkable show of defiance against a president McCain openly defied in life as the antithesis of the American spirit of service to something greater than any individual.

"Standing near McCain’s flag-draped casket and with Trump’s daughter in the audience, Meghan McCain delivered a broadside against the uninvited president without mentioning his name.
“We gather here to mourn the passing of American greatness — the real thing, not cheap rhetoric from men who will never come near the sacrifice he gave so willingly, nor the opportunistic appropriation of those who lived lives of comfort and privilege while he suffered and served,” she said, her voice first choking back tears. Then, it rose in anger.

“The America of John McCain,” she added, with a reference to Trump’s trademark phrase, “has no need to be made great again because America was always great.”

'The audience of Washington power players erupted in applause."

On August 31, 2018, at a memorial service for a well-known entertainer the following occured:

"The late great Aretha Franklin demanded R-E-S-P-E-C-T, but that didn't stop at least a couple of speakers at her funeral service in Detroit from trivializing her memory.

"Democrats Michael Eric Dyson and Al Sharpton took the opportunity to blast President Trump during their eulogies, continuing a sickening . . . tradition of politicizing public memorial services.

"Former presidents and preachers and legendary singers took to the stage at Greater Grace Temple to pay their respects to the Queen of Soul during the farewell extravaganza.

"Marring the event was the hateful and partisan tone taken by Dyson and Sharpton, who whipped the mourning crowd into a frenzy at every mention of Trump.

"Dyson lauded Aretha Franklin for being socially conscious and politically active throughout her life -- before viciously laying into the president.

"Then this orange apparition had the nerve to say she worked for him! You lugubrious leech!" he bellowed, apparently meaning that President Trump is a sad and mournful bloodsucker. "You dopey doppelganger of deceit and deviancy!" he continued, sticking with the alliteration theme. "You lethal liar, you dimwitted dictator! You foolish fascist!!!"


A DINNER

You get an invitation to dinner by a fellow church member and you and your spouse look forward to it, but once the dinner begins, you realize that the host and hostess have an agenda on their minds and it isn't fellowship. The real purpose of of the dinner is to hold you captive while they launch into a diatribe against the pastor of the church and how we can rid the church of him. Then you realize that you've been tricked and invited under false pretenses. The host and hostess invited you to use you for their nefarious plan. Happens all the time.

Speaking of dinner and politicalization, Trevin Wax asks, "Remember when you could go to Chick-fil-a without feeling like you were making a political point? Or when you could buy a few things from Walmart, stop in at Whole Foods, and check out the sales at Target without wondering how either your support or boycott would affect public policy? Or when you could watch an award show on TV . . . without hearing political speeches or seeing protests?"


FOOTBALL

I've never been to an NFL game up close and personal, but there's always television if I want to do so. Besides, by watching a game on TV, I get my money's worth because I get to see the game at least twice because they replay everything except the coin toss in slow motion, twice, sometimes three times. What a deal. And it's free!

If I tune into a game, I want to see the game. I want to see my team annihilate, maim, humiliate, and destroy the other team. I don't want to see people using the game to force feed me their opinions about anything other than the game. I'm not watching to learn the political philosophy of any player, coach, announcer, or water boy. I didn't click the remote to learn what candidate or elected official they like or dislike. When they use the game as a platform to do that, I feel used and manipulated, I feel that I'm being forced to watch or listen to something I'm didn't come to hear or see.  

If I want to know their opinion about anything other than the game, they can rent a room, state the purpose of the meeting, and invite me and others to come. None of us like to be forced to listen to or watch something sprung on us. We feel like we're being held captive. If we are invited to attend an event or a meeting, it's only fair that we know beforehand the purpose of the meeting.

A CHURCH

Now, let's transfer this to church. I don't go to church to learn of the liberal pastor's political beliefs. By the same token, I don't go to church to hear a conservative pastor tell me that he's voting for some conservative candidate. I go to hear a word from God. If I want to have a political discussion, I can go to lunch with them and be informed without feeling like I'm being held captive, manipulated, or used in any way. Such a meeting would be informative and a rollicking good time. They would learn something from me and I from them.

When the church becomes politicized by rallying the faithful for one candidate or another or one piece of legislation or another, she's lost the focus of the Great Commission. She's spending her energy to seek worldly power through political means. The offshoot of this is that she becomes involved in social action and becomes a social justice warrior.

Not only that, but if she wants Candidate X to win an election, she will find there's only one way to do it and that's by allying herself with a host of unbelievers and cult groups who also support Candidate X because the church doesn't have the numbers necessary to carry Candidate X to victory. The Bible commands us not to be yoked up with unbelievers.

BILL CLINTON AND DONALD TRUMP

Would it be fair to say that former President Bill Clinton and President Donald Trump are somewhat lacking in the moral department? Most would agree. But the man who was "president" in Paul's day made those two look like choir boys on the way home from a Bible study.

Nero murdered his mother, and every member of the royal family who, in any way, threatened his power. He forced political opponents to commit suicide, and if they didn't, he'd murder them too. His gluttony would last from noon to midnight at lavish banquets. He persecuted Christians to the extent that he would hang them on poles, coat them with oil, and set them on fire in order to illuminate his garden parties. Some of his activities are too gross and vulgar to mention and I'll refrain from sullying your eyes by having to read them.

As if that weren't enough, it was common knowledge among the Romans that Nero would disguise himself and go roving the streets of Rome at night with a band of thugs, attacking and beating innocent people, just for the thrill of it. Why? Because he could.

Now, think about this: how much time did Paul spend writing and preaching about Nero? How often did he mention him in all the epistles he wrote? We can find the answer by looking up "Nero" and "Caesar" in a concordance.

Paul emphasized to the church, "I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified." And then he wrote, "For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel." (I Cor. 1:17; 2:2)

The Bible-believing Christian does not get his meaning from politics. Our loyalty is to something more ultimate than a piece of legislation or a political party. The Bible, of course, has political implications, but it demotes the political arena to a way, way lower place.

To politicize something is to use an event for a political purpose. From funerals to football, we're being politicized.




Friday, August 24, 2018

GOOD TEACHER, EVIL STUDENT

He had a good teacher and at a young age, his teacher taught him some excellent principles for living which could carry him through the rest of his life. The teacher, without knowing it, showed the truth of Romans 2:14-15: "For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them . . ."

This teacher was a Gentile who had no Bible, Old or New Testament. But he, like all those without the Bible, had a moral code written in his heart, put there by God, an innate knowledge and a inherent sense of what's right and what's wrong. This morality was, as it is for all men, stamped in his DNA. 

And so he taught his young ward the principles of what was good: he taught him the virtues: clemency, justice, and that human life was sacrosanct. He also taught him about generosity, a trait admired the world over. The teacher he's famous for writing: “We are not given a short life but we make it short, and we are not Ill-supplied but wasteful of it.”

His teacher warned him against egotism: "The chief obstacle is that we are quick to be satisfied with ourselves. If we find someone to call us good men, cautious and principled, we acknowledge him. We are not content with a moderate eulogy, but accept as our due whatever flattery has shamelessly heaped upon us. We agree with those who call us best and wisest, although we know they often utter many falsehoods: we indulge ourselves so greatly that we want to be praised for a virtue which is the opposite of our behavior. A man hears himself called ‘most merciful . . . so it follows that we don’t want to change because we believe we are already excellent.”

THE STUDENT

The problem was that his most famous student didn't do his homework; he became one of those in history who has rightly deserved the title of "monster." It all started when the student decided that he would be the master of his own destiny. He came to believe that he was omnipotent, that no one was going to tell him what to do, and if I want to do something, who's going to stop me?

His gluttony knew no bounds--he would throw lavish parties that lasted from noon to midnight. Donning a disguise, he became a serial killer, stalking, beating, and murdering people night after night. In all of this, not one single person gave him any reproof. He murdered his mother (matricide). He murdered his brother (fratricide). He murdered every relative he had.

There were two things that summarize his life: cruelty and chaos. 

His teacher is the epitome of Romans 2:14-15, a good man without the Bible, with a morality written in his heart. 

The student is the epitome of Jeremiah 17:9: "“The heart is more deceitful than all else And is desperately sick; Who can understand it?"

The teacher? Seneca. The student? Nero.   

 

Friday, August 17, 2018

THE DAILY DRIVEL DUMP

Back in the day, they called TV sets, "The Idiot Box." They should see it now. It has become pure, unadulterated drivel, especially the daytime variety of TV. Take for example a program called, "The Wendy Williams Show." Her audience is primarily women, but all women everywhere should be insulted by the fare offered. 

Here's a summary of what a segment of her program, offered under the daily title of "Hot Topics," on July 19, 2018:

1. How Wendy Williams celebrated her birthday with a gala dinner.
2. The marriage of Stevie J and Faith Evans. The two had a surprise, quickie wedding in Las Vegas, and were married by a Cher impersonator.
3. Stevie J’s million-dollar back child support
4. Leslie Jones and Jessica Alba’s feud
5. Bethenny Frankel’s custody and legal issues with her ex-husband, Jason Hoppy
6. Joel McHale discussed his new Netflix show.

Wait. What? Those people mentioned above--are important to us? Why? Who are they? Even if you've heard of them, does what they say or do have any ounce of impact on your life?

The elite of our culture bemoan the demeaning of women, then they do exactly that with what they put on TV. It's been this way for a while. Back in 1999, daytime TV viewers were treated to "out-of-control teens shrieking at their parents on “Maury” and “Jenny Jones.” Lovers confronted their cheating mates on “Montel Williams.” On “Jerry Springer,” a man admitted to cheating on his girlfriend. Later, a livid Judge Joe Brown threw the book at a man who confessed he didn’t lift a finger to help his ex-wife pay for the funeral of their 21-year-old son." (Examples from "The New York Post")

Jerry Springer, former mayor of Cincinnati, was a pioneer in dumping trash into American living rooms. The studio audience made up of men and women chanted, applauded, and cheered as the show paraded a plethora of perversity across the stage--while on stage, people screamed at each other, argued, brawled, and bellowed in front of the American public, a public that didn't know it was all choreographed; the on-stage brawls were planned beforehand and built into the program's daily drivel dumping.The hair-pulling and fist-jabbing were earlier decreed to occur and the combatants were told when and how much time would be devoted to the pugilism. It was as rigged as a professional wrestling event.

Is all this by accident or is something more going on? History says that more is going on.

Maybe Roman history can help us when we look at the plebeians in 1st century Rome. "Plebeians were average working citizens of Rome – farmers, bakers, builders or craftsmen – who worked hard to support their families and pay their taxes. Over the course of this period, early forms of public welfare were established by Titus and Trajan, and, in difficult times, plebeians could ask Roman administrators for help.

"The individual plebeians had little power, there were a lot of them. In bad times, or during political unrest, there was always the risk of the Roman ‘mob’ rioting or rebelling against the upper classes.

"The Emperor Augustus was well aware of this risk and was keen to keep the poorest plebeians happy enough and reasonably well fed so that they would not riot. He began the system of state bribery that the writer, observer Juvenal described as ‘bread and circuses’.

"Free grain and controlled food prices meant that plebeians could not starve, while free entertainment – such as chariot races and gladiators in amphitheaters and the Circus Maximus – meant that they wouldn't get bored and restless. Bribery it may have been, but it often worked."

With the plebs fed and entertained by the mindless blood sports and chariot races, the Romans didn't notice (or care) that their society was falling apart, nor did they notice that Augustus had kept the trappings of the old republic, but their beloved republic was gone. The Empire had come, along with the powers of an emperor.

The human race is easily distracted from the vital questions: Who am I? Where did I come from? Where am I going? What's my purpose? While they were at the foot of the cross of the Son of God, the most momentous event in human history, what captivated the attention of the Roman soldiers? A dice game for His clothes.  





Friday, August 10, 2018

THE DIFFERENCE ONE LETTER MAKES

Which word did Thomas Jefferson write in the Declaration of Independence? Did he write, "All men are endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights," or did he write, "All men are endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights?" Um . . . good question.

Or is it a good question? You might be thinking, "All this sounds pedantic, like, do we say, "potato," or do we say "po-tah-to?" Who cares? It's still a potato, the delicious vegetable that gives us heart attack-producing french fries.

But on the choice of that one little letter, an "i" or a "u," hangs a world of difference.

How so? If the Declaration is declaring that we are endowed by our Creator with "unalienable rights," then that means those rights are "incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred." Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed. pg. 1,523: "You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the Creator to the individual and can not, under any circumstances, be surrendered or taken. All individual's have unalienable rights."

That's quiet a mouthful, but an important mouthful because, if Jefferson had written, "All men are endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights," then the Declaration of Independence would be saying that those rights are "not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. You can surrender, sell or transfer inalienable rights if you consent either actually or constructively. Inalienable rights are not inherent in man and can be taken by government.

The Declaration of Independence is saying that human beings have unalienable rights. It's that one little letter that makes all the difference. No one, no government, no circumstance or set of circumstances, not even you yourself can take or surrender unalienable rights.

Paul bases his argument in the book of Galatians on the omission of one letter, the letter "s" in Galatians 3:16: "Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as referring to many, but rather to one, “And to your seed,” that is, Christ."

According to Paul, the singular of the noun is also a designation of the one Christ in distinction from all other descendants of Abraham together.

Behold the doctrine of inspiration--the Holy Spirit so carried along the authors of Scripture that the words they chose, the very letters of the words they chose, singular or plural, were those God wanted them to choose.