THE POWER OF ONE DAY

There's one day of the year that exerts a power like no other. It's so powerful that rulers, legislattors, dictators, educators, corporations, and businesses fear it with a vengeance and with such strength we might classify it as a seasonal phobia that comes every December around the world--a Christmasphobia. The very word itself strikes fear into the hearts of the aforementioned. 

We see the fear in any country in which communist rulers clench their iron fists to crush the day. The reason for that is because to celebrate or even say the word, "Christmas" is to say that there is a power higher than the states they rule. Embedded in the word is "Christ." 

THE PHOBIA IN ALBANIA 

 Beginning in 1945, Albania was under the communist regime of Enver Hoxha. In 1967, Albania became the first officially declared atheist country in the world. All religions were prohibited, places of worship were closed and / or destroyed, clergy were persecuted, tortured, and / or imprisoned. 

Religious practices being forbidden, religious celebrations were also removed from the calendar and replaced by festivities in honor of the communist party. (There can be no power higher than the state.) Christmas was replaced by New Year’s Day. Celebrated on December 31st and January 1st, New Year’s Day got all aspects of the Christmas festivities while erasing the religious aspects. Santa Claus was no longer Saint Nicholas, he was, "Grandfather of the New Year." The Christmas tree became the "New Year's Tree."

Only a few children, those of the elite, received gifts for New Year or a basket containing fruits and dried fruits. Nevertheless, braving the laws, many believers celebrated Christmas secretly within families, running the risk of being arrested or imprisoned. For almost 25 years Albania was deprived of Christmas, until 1990, when religion was again allowed and places of worship were reopened and rebuilt.

THE PHOBIA IN NORTH KOREA

The North Korean government works hard to ensure information about religious holidays doesn't enter the "Hermit Kingdom," so its citizens remain unaware that people are eating cookies, gorging on pecan pies, and singing Christmas carols across the West.

This is because inside North Korea – a country widely deemed to be one of the most hostile and repressive towards organized religion – you can be imprisoned, tortured or executed for celebrating Christmas. The fear of Christmas among the leaders is that strong.

Kang Jimin, who grew up on the ghostly grey concrete streets of the capital of Pyongyang, says he remained wholly oblivious to Christmas while living there.

“There is no Christmas in North Korea. I didn't know what it was,” he said in an interview.( He was 31 years-old at the time.)

He went on to say, "Christmas is Jesus Christ’s birthday but North Korea is a communist country so people do not know who Jesus Christ is. They do not know who God is. The Kim family is their god.” (I. e., "The government is their god.")

In a strange quirk, Christmas trees adorned with baubles and Christmas lights can be found in Pyongyang, but are there all year round and citizens are unlikely to be aware of the message they bear.

But this doesn't mean the North Korean government was happy with the Christmas tree-shaped tower the South Korean government constructed near the border with the North.

The tower – which was about two miles from the border and had in the past been lit up at Christmas – could be seen by North Koreans living in nearby towns. Incensed by it, the North threatened to shoot it down back in 2014, saying it constituted “psychological warfare." Talk about having a fear of Christmas!

But while Christmas is forbidden in North Korea, celebrating the birthday of Kim Jong-Suk – the deceased grandmother of Kim Jong Un – is not. People mark the revolutionary idol’s birthday, which falls on Christmas Eve, by making pilgrimages to a town in the north-east called Hoeryong (her birthplace).

“The birthday of Kim Jong-Il and Kim Jong Un – the men – is more important, but Kim Jong-Suk’s birthday was celebrated. People come together and have a drink and sometimes drink too much,” he said.

Kang says he didn't know any Christians when he was living in North Korea, adding: “I did not know any Christians or anyone who believed in God. The North Korean government controls all of the media and the Internet, and people I met don't know who Jesus is.”

He was aware of the stark punishments enforced on those who dared practice religion in the atheist state.

“You can’t say you are Christian. If you do, they will send you to a prison camp,” he says. “I heard about a family who believed in God and the secret police caught them. They are now all dead – even the children – a 10-year-old and a seven-year-old.” (The terror of the state for anything or anyone higher than the state results in murdering children, women, and men.)

THE PHOBIA IN RUSSIA

Stalin hated the idea that his people might believe in a power greater than his own. Christmas says that there is. When the Bolsheviks—Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin with comrades—took power in Russia, the Christmas tree had to go.

While Lenin was alive, the tree was used as a New Year Eve feature. After him, in order to dress up what was now called a “New Year spruce” for public display, you needed the government’s permission. In the banning of his rule, Stalin sent government officials into homes to see if they had dared to erect a Christmas tree. The fear of Christmas results in government agents bursting into the homes of the people. 

THE PHOBIA IN AMERICA

Among the movers and shakers of our society there is a Christmasphobia. Among the many instances of this terror,  a Michigan elementary school's principal issued a directive specifically forbidding references to God, Christianity, or the birth of Jesus Christ. 

Advertisers fear using the word "Christmas"-- instead, there are the ubiquitous wishes, "Happy Holidays" and "Seasons Greetings" instead of "Merry Christmas." Schools no longer have the Christmas Holidays," but instead the observe a "Winter Break" Is it not strange that advertisers have no fear of saying, "Happy Hanukkah," but can't say, "Merry Christmas?"

The President of the United States was afraid to say the name "Jesus" in a recent address. From the news report we learn that he said, "How silently, how silently, the wondrous gift is given,” Biden began, as he delivered his address to reporters at the White House. The president spoke about a “child” born on Christmas but didn't speak the child’s name. “We look to the sky to a lone star, shining brighter than all the rest guiding us to the birth of a child, a child that Christians believe to be the Son of God,” he said.

In addition to fearing to say, "Jesus," the careful reader will note the statement, "The child that Christians believe to be the Son of God." The implication is, "He's not the Son of God, but Christians believe He is."

And now for a personal example: I was in line to check out at a store when the clerk, a person who appeared to be in her late teens or early, very early, 20s finished with the customer in front of me, said, "Happy holidays," to which he replied, "Merry Christmas." She then responded, "Merry Christmas." 

When my turn came, as she finished, she said, "Happy Holidays," and I said, "You shouldn't be afraid to say, "Merry Christmas." She then said, "Merry Christmas."

Go figure.  

.

 

 

 

 

WHY WE CAN'T TALK TO EACH OTHER

We're living in a terrible time spiritually. It's an age that's been called "a post-truth age" which, according to the dictionary, means, “a situation in which people are more likely to accept an argument based on their emotions and beliefs, rather than one based on facts.” 

We see this when we hear people talking about  "my truth" and "your truth." This reflects the idea that there is no objective standard by which we can know the truth. Those words the warp and woof of a “post-truth” society as it replaces an “objective truth” with many "truths" based on individual emotions and feelings.

I saw this in full view at the University of Missouri where there was this well-known speaker was to give a lecture open to the public, students, faculty, and anyone. This speaker was to present a lecture on controversial topics like the objective fact that there are two sexes, male and female, subjects like that. 

As he started speaking, a group of students stood up and started chanting, "Shame! Shame! Shame!" over and over and over again. They were so loud that the speaker couldn't be heard with the result that he couldn't continue. I would add that some of them were making obscene gestures at him as they chanted. The students were wild-eyed and in the grip of their frenzied emotions run amuck. 

As an aside, their actions were not courageous. They knew absolutely nothing was going to happen to them. They weren't going to be expelled or sanctioned in any way for the disruption of an approved meeting on state property. There would be no consequences. The adults on the faculty who were there would not criticize them; they would approve their actions, thinking that they, as their teachers, had taught them well. They were letting the inmates run the asylum. 

This is what a post-truth age is like: Instead of emotions being formed by objective truth, those emotions become “my truth.”This was what was on full, raging display at the University Missouri. The hecklers had worked themselves into an emotional display on steroids. Thus, the hecklers' veto carried the day. The frenzied herd can get so frenetic that the campus police have to escort the speaker out of the room for his or her own protection of life and limb. It's happening repeatedly on campuses.

There can be no rational conversation with chanters bellowing the same word or words over and over again. The students had become a mindless herd which can could manipulated through feelings. In actuality what was happening in Missouri was that, by the frenzied chanting of "their truth," they couldn't be confronted by "the truth." It was impossible.

That's what these "safe spaces" on college campuses are all about: they teach the immature to avoid facts that would promote rational thought and conversations leading to objective truth. Those who hold to "my truth"--they are people with whom you cannot reason. You cannot meaningfully communicate with chanters of slogans. Society begins to break down. 

It's like a cancer, it brings its corrupting influence on our politics; it's dividing families as incompatible “my truth” worlds come up against each other.

The post-truth age isn't new, read the book of Judges, chapters 1-21 and watch a nation descends into chaos as each person has his own "my truth." 

LIVING WITH JOHN CALVIN

History is one fascinating subject whether it be American history (Bunker Hill, The Alamo, et al.) or church history. Church history is the redheaded stepchild of many a Christian's ranking of what's what in the past, but fascinating it is. 

For example, what was it like to live in Geneva, John Calvin's "New Israel," AKA Geneva? You don't have to wonder, we have the receipts. 

In time, with the authority of the Geneva city council, Calvin became the religious dictator of Protestant Geneva, empowered to root out all manifestations of Catholicism and immorality. And root he did.

His was an overt totalitarian regime. Calvin instituted a kind of religion police that he and the city council empowered to inspect people’s houses to ascertain if they behaved according to Calvin’s ordinances. (Could you live with those inspectors and their inspections?)

The council said, "No way" to having Rosaries and relics in your domicile, and it became illegal to name children after saints. (Could live with city officials telling you the approved names for your children?)

Next, your choice of reading material came under Calvin's purview. “Immoral” or Catholic books were locked down; art, music with instruments, dancing, and theater were not allowed. 

Then your dinner table came under his watchful eye. There were regulations for the amounts of the edibles allowed at your table, breakfast, lunch, and dinner. 

Next came your wardrobe which included the prescribed colors of clothing. What about your hair style? That was fair game too.  Gambling, drunkenness, adultery, promiscuity, immodest dress, profane songs, idolatry, heresy, and speaking ill of the clergy were punished, often by exile or execution. (I sort of like that "no speaking ill of the clergy" idea, but that's just me.)

They censored the press, and severely so. Education, which Calvin regarded as inseparable from religion, was carefully regulated. New schools were established, with emphasis on arithmetic, writing, and history in primary school, and Latin, Greek, and Hebrew in secondary schools to facilitate study of the Bible. They eliminated begging by having the government regulate charity.

Fifty-eight people were executed during the first five years of Calvin’s rule, and seventy-six exiled. Most notorious was the case of Michael Servetus, the scientist and theologian with whom Calvin had corresponded earlier but they disagreed on religious dogma. 

Specifically, Servetus (indeed a heretic) denied the existence of the Trinity. On his way to Italy he made the fatal error of passing through Geneva, was arrested, tried for heresy by the city council, and condemned to death. 

Calvin agreed with the sentence and wanted him beheaded. But the council decided to have him slowly roasted at the stake in a fire made expressly of green wood so that it would burn more slowly and prolong his agony.

One author states, "John Calvin’s Geneva, represented the ultimate in repression. The city-state of Geneva, which became known as the Protestant Rome, was also, in effect, a police state, ruled by a Consistory of five pastors and twelve lay elders, with the bloodless figure of the dictator looming over all. In physique, temperament, and conviction, Calvin (1509–1564) was frail, thin, short, and lightly bearded, with ruthless, penetrating eyes, he was humorless and short-tempered."

The slightest criticism enraged him. Those who questioned his theology he called “pigs,” “donkeys,” “riffraff,” “dogs,” “idiots,” and “stinking beasts.” One morning he found a poster on his pulpit accusing him of “Gross Hypocrisy.” A suspect was arrested. No one produced any evidence as to his guilt, but he was tortured day and night for a month untill he confessed. Screaming with pain, he was lashed to a wooden stake. His feet were nailed to the wood; ultimately he was decapitated.

Now here's a thought: had Calvin been a classical dispensationalist, those 58 people would have lived; those 76 could have stayed at home. The classical dispensationalist distinguished Israel from the church and that would have made all the difference in the world.

Any takers to move to 16th century Geneva and live with John Calvin?

THE FLAG

 It happened in the historic city of Boston in a courthouse. The news reported the story: "The city of Boston has agreed to pay more than $2.1 million to the Christian legal organization that backed a court challenge after the city refused to fly a Christian flag outside City Hall, a case that made it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. 

"The settlement announced Tuesday by Liberty Counsel covers attorneys' fees and other costs associated with the legal battle that started in 2017 when city resident Hal Shurtleff and his Camp Constitution group asked to hoist the flag on one of three poles on City Hall Plaza to mark Constitution Day.

"The Christian flag — which is white, with a red cross on a blue background in the upper left corner —finally flew for a couple of hours outside City  Hall on August 3, 2022, as activists cheered and sang songs of praise,"

A five-year battle, over two million dollars, all for a couple of hours? And for what purpose? It will be forgotten tomorrow. 

But there's a question: Why? What's the purpose? The courthouse isn't Christian and has nothing to do with Christianity. In fact, many of their decisions have been flat-out anti-Christian. 

Freedom of speech? Yes, that's true. But, again, why? Is this a line in the sand you're willing to die for? 

For those 120 minutes, was the city government of Boston Christianized? Did Boston's colleges such as MIT, Harvard, and Boston College profess the name of Christ? Did the culture change in any way? Of course not.

The issue goes deeper than that. God ordained the state because of sin. Its concern is for all people. God ordained the church for the community of the saved. 

The state cannot be Christianized, certainly not by a flag flying for a few hours.  

Five long years of legal wrangling. Over $2 million spent. Why  on earth? 

WHEN THE LOSERS APPLAUDED

 Relativism is shooting through every aspect of society to the extent that it's producing ludicrous results, ridiculous results but also insanely dangerous results. A case in point happened in the Live Free or Die State of New Hampshire as seen in the outcome of a beauty pageant.Competing in that contest was a male who is now a female. (Not too many months ago, that would have been a ridiculous sentence to write but this is now, that was then.)

The winner, in the opinion of the judges, signals the serious problem. The result signifies what relativism does to a culture: it causes the loss of categories. In such a society, all categories are gone--right, wrong, male female, good, evil, even the category of beauty or not beautiful. And that last word brings up a popular song of days gone by, a song of relativism called, "Everything is Beautiful in It's Own Way."

The Nazi concentration camps and crematoriums weren't beautiful. The starvation of his own people by Stalin showed us that communism isn't beautiful. The self-admitted blood lust of the Cuban thug Che Guevara wasn't beautiful. A comatose drug addict lying on a front porch in San Francisco is ugly.  Abortion would also fit in the class of those things which aren't beautiful. 

When the judges announced the winner, the losing girls acted as trained seals and, with smiling faces, applauded with gusto. Each one of the losers, after who knows how many months of preparation, were acting as if the final decision was normal. From everything I've read about the event, no parent, mother or father, no aunt or uncle, no brother or sister raised their voices against the charade. Everyone was acting as if the emperor was wearing clothes, to use the analogy of the fable. They were active participants in the farce.

There are those of you who were fortunate because of the genes you inherited regarding your appearance. Then there are the rest of us; not so fortunate. But, that's the way life is, and to pretend otherwise is a denial of reality and that's dangerous especially when it slides over into the denial of right and wrong.

Douglas Murray, a leading and perceptive critic of our relativistic culture, says that few have the courage to say, "No, this is wrong" or, "I will not listen to this." Or, "I will not participate in this." He points out that there will be a serious personal result from this, the person who doesn't speak up will hate himself later because he didn't say, "No." 

"In the absence of intellectual opposition, these notions  will gradually come to be absorbed into the culture. The uncontested absurdities of today are the accepted slogans of tomorrow. They come to be accepted by degrees, by precedent by implication, by erosion, by default, by dint of constant pressure on one side and constant retreat on the other--until the day when they are suddenly declared to the country's official ideology." (Ayn Rand)

We will leave it at that without saying more other than to say that a picture is worth a thousand words. You can judge for yourself by viewing the picture of the winner of the pageant as well as the losers by going to https://mwdentallab.org/transgender-brian-nguyen-wins-miss-greater-derry-2023-netizens-divide-over-models-beauty-pageant-winner/

The winner is in the center of the picture holding what appears to be the trophy. 

The categories are gone. Absurdity has triumphed and with applause.

 ONE STRIKE

There's a line in the famous baseball song, "Take Me Out to the Ball Game,'" that goes, "For it's one, two, three strikes and you're out of the ol' ball game." During the 7th inning stretch, the Cub fans at Wrigley Field stand and belt out that tune under the leadership of Harry Caray their late and beloved announcer in the broadcast booth.

Baseball has three strikes and you're out. Three chances to hit the 90+ mile an hour fastball or the curve, or whatever the pitcher throws. But what about God? Does He go by the three strike rule or is He, as we say, the God of second chances? Well, everyone of us proves that He is, that He does give us another opportunity after we've had our spritual failure(s). We prove it everyday since we still exist. God is gracious, isn't He? Abraham, Jacob, Samson, Jonah, Peter, and all the disciples had their second and sometimes third and fourth and fifth opportunities to get in step, in harmony with the will of God. It's all right there when you read the Bible, Old or New Testaments. 

But, you know,when you think about it, that's not the complete picture. Sometimes in recorded history, it's one strike and you're o--u-t out. So, let's balance out the picture of God in this regard and think of some one strike and you're out people. 

The first that comes to mind is a group: the angels that decided to rebel against God and follow Lucifer. They went that route once and that was it. They were cast out from God's presence and that was it. No repentance for them. No salvation.

But let's go to the human race. Remember Ananias and Sapphira? One lie to the Lord and their church--they were struck dead  immediately. No second chance to say, "I take it back, I'm sorry." How about Aaron's sons who didn't observe the proper approach to God by means of the sacrificial system? Nadab and Abihu, both gone in a flash through a consuming fire. There was no, "Can't we do the sacrifice over?" 

Achan and his family disobeyed God in the taking of the spoils of war for their own personal enrichment. God destroyed them right in front of everybody. They weren't allowed to say, "OK. OK.We'll give it back."

Then there's the really frightening one in Hebrews 6. In writing to the Jewish Christians who were defecting back into Judaism because of persecution from their kinsman according to the flesh, God said this of them:  "For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come,  and then have [a]fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, [b]since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame."

For those who defected from the faith, there would be no second chances: it would be impossible "to restore them again to repentance." In context, He's saying that it will be impossible to restore them to progressing to maturity. 

As the author of Hebrews points out, that was their "willful sin," the sin of defection and siding with the enemies of Christ, thus "crucifying Him again." They would never recover from that; they would be "sinners in the hands of an angry God."

Is God the God of second chances? Of course, but there are times and there are sins  . . . We've been warned.

THE BIBLE FOR THE DUMB

The Princeton Review educational testing service measured one indicator of the historical decline of comprehension by the American public by comparing the vocabulary used by Richard Nixon and John Kennedy in their televised debate of 1960 with the vocabulary used by Bill Clinton and George Bush in their 1992 debate. Their study found that the level of vocabulary in the presidential debates had slipped from a tenth-grade reading level in 1960 to a sixth-grade level in 1992. (Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas had debated at an eleventh-grade level in 1858.)  

By the year 2000, things were worse: In the debates of that year, George W. Bush spoke at a sixth-grade level (6.7); Al Gore spoke at a high seventh-grade level (7.9). (from The Hoover Institution)

The Hoover Institution went on to say, "Our contemporary politicians, who find it necessary to speak to us as sixth and seventh graders, in turn, looked sophomoric when compared to Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas, whose scores in their debates, respectively, were 11.2 and 12.0 in 1858." 

In my humble opinion, things have sunk so low that our current vice president Kamala Harris speaks at an infuriating condescending level to adults that's too low to measure on the Princeton scale. It's so bad that if I had ever given a speech like she does in my junior high school English classes or my high school speech class, my grade would have been an "F" and rightly so. 

There's no doubt that the American public has been and is being dumbed down year by year. My own personal indicator is a question I often ask people since it's connected with my book, "Truthspeak," a book whose intellectual roots are the novel, "1984" by George Orwell. The answer to my question, "Are you familiar with the book, "1984?" is, much more often than not,"No." It's come to be a classic work few today have read or heard of. 

And this brings us to a Bible called "The Living Bible." It's a paraphrase by Dr. Kenneth N. Taylor. It's important, as you will see, to note that it's a paraphrase.

One reviewer wrote about "The Living Bible,' "The growing popularity of the Living Bible was one of many signs of the dumbing-down of American English that took place during the twentieth century. The trend was noticed by linguists as early as 1931, when Edward Sapir observed that the technology of mass communication has led to 'the insidious cheapening of literary and artistic values due to the foreseen and economically advantageous ‘widening of the appeal.’ All [linguistic] effects which demand a certain intimacy of understanding tend to become difficult and are therefore avoided.”  The rate of decline accelerated during the 1960’s and 70’s.

"Taylor’s method and its 'exciting results' involved the dumbing-down of the biblical text to a grade-school level, and this was in keeping with the linguistic and educational trends of the time." 

 

A "Bible" on the grade school level for adults? When the child becomes a young adult and goes to college, the odds are that he will look upon the Bible as a puerile book, a book meant for children, not adults. He will put it on the level just a bit above "Dick and Jane Go to the Farm." He will never know the depth of the Gospel of John nor the intellectual heft of Paul's epistles.

Besides that, there's an inherent danger in all paraphrases: there is no way that the one doing the paraphrasing can keep his own proclivities, opinions, and doctrines out of his work. It is impossible and there's no way around it. It will invariably happen. Therefore, the Bible will not be allowed to speak for itself. The paraphraser becomes the fallible human filter through which the Word of God must flow.

Avoid the paraphrase. Choose a translation such as "The New American Standard Bible." But no, never a paraphrase.

THE MAN WHO RULES THE EVANGELICAL WORLD FROM HIS GRAVE

 Charles Finney (1792-1875) was a revivalist who led America's 2nd Great Awakening. He's the father of many of the terms we use today which present an inaccurate gospel. These are words that many in evangelical circles use without thinking because they've heard them tossed around with reckless abandon through the years, tossed so many times in so many churches, in so many books, in so many tracts that they've become embedded in our minds. 

These terms are ubiquitous, terms such as, "Accept Christ as your Savior," "Give your life to Christ," "Make Christ the lord of your life," "Abandon your sins," "Ask Jesus into your heart," and "Confess your sins," et al. We could also point out one of the all-time favorites, the ABC method of  "Admit you are a sinner, Believe in Jesus, and Confess." 

Finney said, "Do whatever it takes to induce a conversion." Today that would mean, if it will induce a conversion, turn down the lights; if it will induce a conversion, use dry ice. These are manipulative, man-made techniques and whatever is man-made to manipulate is way, way off the reservation from the Scriptures. They should be classified as gimmicks. 

 People repeat the above phrases disguised as the gospel without asking, "Are any of these statements in the Bible?" Or more particularly, "Are any of these requirements in the Gospel of John, the only book in the New Testament written to unbelivers to persuade them to trust Christ as Savior?"

When they read the Gospel of John, they will find that they can't find any of those declarations in the book. Not one. Instead of "steps to salvation," we find one and only one--"believe" ninety-nine times in John and almost 200 times in the entire New Testament. So, salvation is through faith alone which is trust alone in the power of Jesus alone to forgive YOUR sin and give YOU eternal life. 

"Believe" or "trust," must have a content, so, what is the content of saving trust? The Bible is clear: one must believe that Jesus is God (Jn. 8:24); that Christ died for his sins (this implies, of course that he knows and understands that he's guilty of sining) and rose from the dead. That's it. Over and out. No asking, no confessing, no pleading, no tears, and no forsaking of sin. Salvation's one condition is to believe in Christ alone apart from works.

In evangelism, it's important to understand that knowing a bunch of facts about Jesus does not equal being saved. A person my know that Jesus was born of a virgin in Bethlehem; that Jesus died on a cross and even that He rose from the dead. (A Roman Catholic friend of mine told me that while he was studying to become a priest, he believed all of those things, yet was lost. Those were just facts to him.)

The issue for him and all of us is, "Do you, believing and understanding those facts, trust Him, and Him alone to save YOU?" That is the accurate gospel.

WHATEVER HAPPENED TO REVERENCE?

I won't give the "entertainer" any more publicity than she's already received, so she shall remain anonymous.  Her recent public appearance brings up the question, is anything sacred anymore in America? Are we giving our approval for desecrating  and mocking historical artifacts revered for their connection with the past? In my opinion, the answer is "Yes," and there is a biblical connection to our thinking together on this important matter. 

The celebrity in question is a sight to behold on that September night, all decked out for her irreverent stunt before a live audience. First of all, when she comes on stage, you would say that she has been successful in defeating anorexia. I'm putting it nicely that her weight is way, way out of control and dangerously so. Enough said. You get part of the picture.

I say part of the pictrue because we need to note the way she's dressed. I use the word "dressed" loosely because this obese woman is by no means modest. She's dressed in such a way that you wouldn't let her in your home and in days gone by, she would have been arrested for indecency. Enough said on that account too. 

You get the picture. If that's not insulting enough to normal people, to complete the picture, she's holding a flute. You might be thinking, "Well, that's at least something normal about this whole thing, she's going to play the flute for her eager fans. 

This is where irreverence enters. The flute she's holding is on loan from the Library of Congress to her for this night of revelry. It's a historic flute and a valuable one because of the person who owned it way back 200 years ago. It's the flute that was a gift to none other than the Father of the Constitution given to him in celebration of his second inauguration "by the French flute maker Claude Laurent. The Library of Congress has maintained the 200 year-old flute in its vault for decades before allowing [her] to play it onstage." (Scottie Andrew, CNN, Sept. 29, 2022) 

During her performance, to accompany her flutist skills, she does a lewd dance to the music she's playig. Picture all that and the picture of that night is complete except to mention that the crowd applauded the whole thing. People eagerly approving the profane display of the descration of our history. One other thing worth mentioning--this took place in Washington DC.(!)

There's a biblical connection straight out of Daniel 1:2 and 5:1-4. In Daniel 1:2, the Bible tells us what appears to be an incidental detail but it's not. The detail given is that after Nebuchaddnezzar defeated Jerusalem, he brought some of the vessels from the house of God to the house of his god and into the treasury of his god.  It's like in a movie where a lady comes into her house from shopping and puts her keys on the dining room table and the camera focuses on the keys. You know that those keys in some way, some how are going to be important later on.Where she places the key is not an incidental detail. 

In Daniel 5, Belshazzar, the king, holds a huge banquet and is drinking when he had an idea and that was to mock the God of Jews by sending some servants to the museum where they had been on display to get those sacred vessels and drink from them, thus making through their use of the vessels libations to their gods. It was irreverent and choreographed to mock Jehovah. This is where the hand writing on the wall comes in to announce an immediate judgment. Lesson: God is not to be mocked. You lose when you mock God. God wins.

The irrevence to our Father of our Constitution done in Washington DC was a choreograhed mockery of our past and of our Founding Fathers. We can assume that they aren't stupid--they knew what they were doing.

And so we see that Daniel lived at a time in which nothing was sacred, all was grist for a mockery mill. What God calls sacred, we find mocked: marriage is mocked, human life as valuable is mocked, people who hold biblical values are mocked, and the list goes on and on. 

What did Daniel do, living in a day and place where nothing was sacred? He remained faithful and publicly so as we see in Daniel 6:12 in which a stealth law was passed expressly get Daniel. It concerned his praying and the stealth law was that there was to be no one praying except to the king. Daniel's response was to pray, especially where the authors of the law could see him.

Daniel is an example of what we need--more men to be public disciples of Christ.. 

THE EVERLY BROTHERS: ALL I HAVE TO DO IS DREAM

In 1958, the Everly brothers put out a hit song that would be on the charts in Britain for 21 weeks and was Number 1 in America for 5 weeks. It was, "All I have to Do is Dream." It's a song whose line says, "If I want you, all I have to do is dream."

Motivational speakers have figured out that you can fool some of the people all of the time. They have also figured out that to fool people all they have to do is to appeal to a person's dreams. 

"Dreams" is a key word in their "sermons." Those motivational speakers who speak from behind a pulpit in a church auditorium rely heavily on the dreams people have for health, promotions, and wealth, et al. 

"You can achieve your dreams,"and, "Don't give up," they repeat like a never-ending drumbeat. They repeat the word over and over in their books, as evidenced by the following daily devotion entitled "Remember Your Dream."* (The emphasis is mine.)

"We all have dreams we're believing [God] for, but we may have hit some setbacks. Our dreams can get buried under discouragement, past mistakes, rejection, failure, and negative voices. It's easy to settle for mediocrity even when we have all this potential buried inside. Your dream may be buried, but it's still alive. It's not too late to see it come to pass. The key to reaching your destiny is to remember your dream. What has God put in your heart? What did you used to be excited about? Why do you think it's too late, it's too big, or it's not possible? Get your passion back. You haven't missed your opportunity or had too many bad breaks. Stir up your faith. God is going to resurrect what you thought was dead. You may have tried and failed, but dreams that you've given up on are going to suddenly come back to life. God has the final say. He hasn't changed His mind.

Prayer for Today

"Father, thank You for the dreams and desires You put in my heart. Thank You that I can stir up my faith and know that You can resurrect what I may have thought was dead. I declare that it is never too late to see my dreams come to pass because You have the final say. In Jesus Name, Amen."

 

This sermonette smacks of the false idea that all a person has to do is "resurrect it," "stir it up," and "declare that it's never too late." That error has been called, "Name it and claim it." (Motivational speakers are like the circus, you see one, you've seen them all.  Yawn.) 

Let's talk about a man who had a dream for his life. It was a dream for his legacy that would cement him in history. It was the godliest of godly dreams: his name was David and he wanted to  build the Temple in Israel, the first ever. 

In our sanctified imaginations, we can see David's visiting the land on which he would build his dream; we can see him sitting at his desk drawing upand studying the architectural plans he'd meticulously done; we can see him showing his plans to his son Solomon, telling him, "I'm going to put this here and that there." David is so excited.  

The only thing about his dream was that there was one word he hadn't counted on hearing: "No." That's what God said to his great dream. David couldn't "resurrect it," David couldn't stir it up, and David couldn't declare that it was never too late. God dashed the dream a'borning. David, God said, was a man of war and that was God's appointed place and will for him and he could be more than satisfed with what God had given him to do and what he had done. But the dream of building the Temple? NO.

 

Another example is Paul's dream of heading into Turkey with the gospel. That's a godly dream. He was so energetic about his dream that, "after they came to Mysia, they were trying [Greek: imperfect tense, "kept on trying"] to go into Bithynia, and the Spirit of Jesus did not allow them." God said, "No" to that dream. Peter would go there. Paul was to be satisfied with Macedonia. 

 

^{This false idea leads people to assume that their believing, if great enough, that their declaring, if said strongly enough, that their stirring up, if stirred hard enough and long enough will make their dream come true.}  

^{They're headed down a disappointing path. Their name is Legion.} 

 ^{____________________________________________________________}

 

 * Joel Osteen Feb. 4, 2021

JOHN 3:16: INSUFFICENT?

 The answer to that question is, "Yes, John 3:16 is insufficient according to the tenets of Lordship salvation." How so? To answer that question, let's define Lordship Salvation. 

Lrodship Salvation is a false gospel and would therefore stand under the stong language of Galatians 1:8-9: "But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, even now I say again: if anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!."

Lordship salvation presents a false gospel because it delivers a heavy addition of works to grace which therefore nullifies the grace of faith alone in Christ alone as the one and ony condition of salvation. When a person introduces just one single work as a requirement for salvation, that destroys the gospel; Lordship Salvation stuffs a truck load of works into grace.

We'll start unloading the truck with the heavy box labeled "commitment." "COMMENTMENT" means that a person must yield his life to Christ as the Lord of his life. This means everyday, every month, and every year without fail.  According to Lordship Salvation, a person can believe in Jesus for everlasting life and the forgiveness of sin and not be saved because that faith must be joined by a commitment to serve Him his entire life. That first load is a heavy one. But the truck is not empty.

There's another huge box in the truck and this too requires for heavy lifting. It's a box that bears the label, "OBEDIENCE." The requirement is that lifelong obediece must follow commitment. There's no salvation apart from obedience according to Lordship Salvation, because obedience proves that a person is truly saved. Often Lordship Salvation say it this way, “We are saved by faith alone, but the faith that saves is never alone.” That statement is illogical because the last half contradicts the first half. Yet that contradiction is passed over without thought by many even those who say they would disagree with Lordship Salvation.  

There's no rest for the weary; there's another weighty box in the truck. It's the one labeled, "PERSEVERANCE." Commitment must result in obedience and that commitment must result in obedience and those must, absolutely must, persevere from day one until the end of life. A person who commits his life to Christ, and obeys Him for decades, yet he stops serving and obeying Him at the end of life and dies as an immoral person or an alcoholic or a drug addict or any other type of sinner will not enter the gates of pearl. According to Lordship Salvation, no matter how long a person has been committed and has obeyed Christ, he can never assume he's saved, That's the way Lordship Salvation works. 

The signing on to receive these weighty boxes comes with serious psychological difficulties: how do I know if I'm commited enough? How do I know if I'm obedient enough? How do I know I'll be faithful to the finish? Those questions are beyond answers in this life. And if a person is serious, those questions put him into a torture chamber for the rest of his life. 

So, now we come to the question in the title of this essay. According to Lordship Salvation,  the most beloved verse in the Bible, is John 3:16, insufficient to bring eternal life and the forgiveness of sin? Yes, that's the logical conclusion the Lordship salvationist must come to because there's no mention in that verse of commitment, obedience, and perseverance.

Isn't it strange that John left those three things out? Could it be because commitment, obedience, and perseverance are a false gospel? 

Yes.

THE CHURCH THAT DIDN'T LAUGH

During Grace Biblical Seminary's conference in September 2022, a pastor announced that he had brought booklets that were available to one and all. Nothing unusual about that. What was unusual was that he said, "They're free but they will cost you everything." (It was a joke, so this article pauses to hear your laugh.) 

The entire group of attendees, all in unision, laughed with gusto. And well they should; the remark  made no sense. How can something be free and "cost you everything" at one and the same time? It was a non sequitur. (A statement containing an illogical conclusion.)

Imagine that you walk into a local store. As you look through the items, you find something that you're interested in buying. You pick it up and see no price tag attached. You ask the clerk about the price.

“How much is this?” you say. It’s a simple question, right? You expect an equally simple answer.

"It's free, but it will cost you five dollars," the clerk says. She smiles as if she's delivered good news. You need clarification, so you ask once again.

“How can it be free and five dollars?”

"It's a free gift from the manufacturer, but they require that you pay five dollars for it," the clerk says. You feel an urge to argue but decide to put the item down instead. After setting it aside, you slink quietly out of the store. After all, the clerk is obviously deranged. (from Lucas Kitchen)

Kitchen goes on to write, "The basic rules of logic prevent this obvious contradiction from being a successful sales tactic in a department store, yet pastors all over the world pedal this same illogical nonsense from their Sunday pulpits. 

"There was a time in my life, as a minister, where I heard these exact words coming from my mouth. People have left the church in massive numbers in the last three decades, and it's no wonder when foolish phrases like this are the foundation of most gospel presentations." 

But contrary to the GBS conference group, nobody in church laughs at such a  statement. They sit silently, accepting the statement without analyzation, biblical or otherwise.

Romans 5;23 and Revelation 22:17 along with lots of other declarations nod their heads in agreement: salvation is  free. Period. Over and out. 

And yet, next Sunday, millions and millions of people with hear, "Salvation is free but it will cost you everything," and they don't laugh. They should; the statement is ridiculous. The millions who hear this statement should do two things: laugh and leave, never to return and never to write a check to support the propagation of the non sequteur. 

A FATHER,, A MOTHER, A DYING BOY

 A father and mother have come to America. They have a son but there's a problem: he's sick, very sick. The doctors tell the parents that their young son has not one but two tumors in his head. The desperate parents have agreed to go on television for a documentary and announce their certainty that God is going to heal their son.It's a visible, televised examaple of the great faith they have.

We see the parents sittnig on their couch in their den as the camera rolls and we see their son off to their left in a half sitting, half lying position with his eyes closed. He's unresponsive. As the interview progresses, these humble parents tell us the reason for their certainty of the miracle to come: they're going to take their boy to pastor Benny Hinn and there on stage, before a massive throng, they and everyone else will see "Pastor Hinn" perform a miracle. As the father says, "God can do anything."

Television transports us into the massive throng assembled to see a miracle or experience one in one of Hinn's mega meetings. There they are, the father and the mother, who, with assistance, are carrying their son who's lying limp on a stretcher unresponsive and unaware of what's going on around him up to Pastor Hinn waiting on the platform for the boy's arrival.

Hinn, the anointed healer, approaches the unconscious child, touches his face, says some words and pronounces him healed as the boy neither moves nor speaks nor opens his eyes. 

Dad and mom take their son home. Within weeks, he's dead. The television camera and the documentarian return to the parents' home. They've granted another interview and they have an announcement to make. The interviewer asks, "What happened? Whom do you blame for this?"

Without batting an eye or missing a beat, the father says, "We blame ourselves." 

The father says that their son died because, as pastor Hinn said, "We didn't have enought faith." The father doesn't stop with that, he tells the watching audience that he wrote pastor Hinn a check for $2,000 and was glad to do it. 

For the rest of their lives, these two, unless they come to the truth, will go to their graves believing that their son died because of their deficient faith. They will live with the guilt because that's what Pastor Hinn teaches. They believe they failed their son.

What they don't know is that they've met a wolf in sheep's clothing. They've met a wolf who, like the wolves of Jesus' day, "like to walk around in long robes, and like personal greetings in the marketplaces, and seats of honor in the synagogues, and places of honor at banquets, who devour widows’ houses, and for appearance’s sake offer long prayers." The wolf in their case devoured their $2,000. There was no refund.

The wolves are on the prowl because they're ravenous for more. The Copelands, the Dollars, and the Osteens never devour enough; they always go after more. 

They are the modern Tetzles who promise that if you give them your money (by buying their books, purchasing their CDs, by sending them "seed money"), God is just waiting to bless them with prosperity, all the while, it's the wolves who are prospering. 

Why don't the wolves go to the hospitals and perform their "miracles?" Why don't the prosperity preachers go to Central America to the people who wash their clothes by beating them on a rock and sell them their books? Surely those in San Salvador who walk in shoes of cardboard need to hear that God will make them wealthy if they just have enough faith and give their money and buy the books.  They need to know the secret to living their best life now, don't they? 

The prosperity wolves have propagated an idol for people to worship; an idol whose goal is to make people happy and financially comfortable. They fill people's heads with delusions. The last verse of I John still applies today. 

The wolves smile. All the way to the bank.