• Mark

    by Published on 05-05-2015 11:03 PM     Number of Views: 401 
    1. Categories:
    2. Atheist, Agnostic, Agtheist

    It's amazing that anyone would be an atheist or non-Christian, but then again, God affords us this free choice whom to be with, and the ultimate expression of rejecting God to go to Hell is by being an atheist, agnostic or any other kind of non-Christian. The proof is so simple...

    That which does not exist can't cause anything because it doesn't exist. So nature can't start up from nothing. The evidence further supports this in that we observe trillions of cause and effects of nature, an overwhelming preponderance of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, but no hard evidence of something from nothing. Therefore, we can be confident nature needs a cause from something if it didn't always exist. But did it always exist? How could it? If the universe or universes always existed, by that definition, you would have had an eternity to come into being before now, so you should have already happened. And self-contradictory, you would never have come into being because an alleged past eternity of cause and effects of nature would by that definition go on forever never reaching this point. Ergo, atheism and agnosticism are delusional.

    So the uncreated Creator exists. But Who is He? Many claim to believe in God but do they have the right God that will actually have the power to save? The uncreated Creator cannot be less than His creation. Human beings have morals, are personal and accessible to one another. Therefore, God must be too. There are only 3 faiths that are large enough to span the globe to be considered accessible: Christianity, Islam, Hinduism. And God is not an absentee landlord since that is frowned upon so that removes any chance for deism to be true (sorry Anthony Flew you're going to Hell). Islam is clearly false because you can't come along six centuries later and claim Jesus never died on the cross without any evidence to overturn the evidence of the first century in scores of documents. Hinduism would be false because Brahma is said to be amoral, but how can the Creator be less than the created with morals? Additionally Hinduism breaks down because it is, like Islam, salvation by works, but no works can bring you to God lest anyone should boast, because that gap is infinite due to your sin nature and God can have no fellowship with sinful sinners. It is also unjust to become a frog with a frog brain if you become too sinful a human in reincarnation. Your eternal destiny determined by your frog brain choices? You are made in God's image and frogs do not mark that image.

    Therefore, without even knowing anything else about Christianity, we know Jesus is God. In the past 2000 years nobody has been able to find a naturalistic explanation to account for the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles in various group settings. Group hallucinations are impossible. People don't willingly die for what they know is a lie. Swoon theory fails since that would not convince anyone Jesus is the risen Lord, plus it would make Him a liar. Jesus is either God, a liar, or a lunatic. Since He is not a lunatic or a liar, He must be God.
    by Published on 06-03-2014 12:29 AM     Number of Views: 668 
    1. Categories:
    2. Word of Faith Movement

    Popular hipster Hillsong preacher Carl Lentz is not born-again. Therefore, he is going to Hell. When asked why he has no comment about homosexuality, lesbianism and gay marriage he had no comment.

    But we all know the OT and NT speak against it and that Jesus said in Matt. 12.30, "He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad."

    If you are not willing to speak with Jesus against it, Jesus will deny you before the Father in heaven, thus proving, Carl Lentz is not a Christian.

    "Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven" (Matt. 24.32).

    Jesus was anti-gay, anti-homosexual and anti-lesbian.

    When Jesus spoke about the proper relationship for men and women, He meant it.

    Paul said, "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet" (Rom. 1.26,27).

    Imagine in the night clubs of Carl Lentz preaching what response he would get if he spoke like Paul did.

    The penalty in the OT was death for being a fag or lesbo. The fulfillment of those laws in Christ in the NT sense, under the grace of our Lord Jesus, is not to kill such souls but certainly speak up against it that the sentence is the second death an eternal separation from God.

    Jesus said, "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder" (Mark 10.6-9). Let no man claim God has joined man with man or woman with woman!

    By the way in the Bible there is no such thing as the Pastoral System of one preacher up front on a pedestal at a podium. Fellowship took place in homes usually with a few believers gathered reading and studying the Scriptures together and discussing passages peacefully, calmly, quietly and in an emotionally stable fashion.

    If we had more Christians doing this instead of going to their favorite denomination with its false doctrines, the Church would be stronger.
    by Published on 04-20-2014 12:34 AM     Number of Views: 597 
    1. Categories:
    2. Unity of the Body of Christ

    The Rock is not a Stone, and the Stones are not THE Rock

    A workman of the Lord requires still another character feature. This we would call stability—a workman needs to be emotionally stable. Many before God are truly solid and firm, whereas many others are careless, unstable, and double-minded, and who oscillate according to their environment. This undependable nature does not stem from any lack of a desire to be trustworthy but from an unreliable character. Such individuals change with the weather. They are not solid. Yet God requires those who would serve Him to have a firm, reliable, and unshakable constitution.

    In the Bible we can find one particularly easily shaken man. We all know that man to be Peter. But before examining in detail the weak, vacillating, and unreliable nature of Simon Peter’s character, let us first consider a number of encouraging passages of Scripture that can give us all some hope in this area of concern now under discussion. First of all, we read:

    Now when Jesus came into the parts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Who do men say that the Son of man is? And they said, Some say John the Baptist; some, Elijah; and others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But who say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. (Matt. 16.13-16)

    Now on the basis of 1 John 5.1a (“Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is begotten of God”) and 5.13 (“These things have I written unto you, that ye may know that ye have eternal life, even unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God”), we can assuredly say that Peter would not have known those things he uttered in his confession to Jesus at Caesarea Philippi unless he had touched the life of God; for note the very next verse: “Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jonah: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father who is in heaven” (v.17). Please be aware of the fact that people may be with Jesus, even sitting with Him and walking with Him, but they will never know who Jesus is until such inward knowledge as Peter received is revealed to them by the Father who is in heaven.

    Now let us pay close attention to verse 18a. Jesus continued by saying: “And I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter [Greek, Petros, stone], and upon this rock [Greek, petra, rock] I will build my church.” We ought to realize that the true Church of God is not a shaking entity. For the Church, as our Lord declared here, is built on the rock. Let us keep this rock in mind as we pursue our discussion further.

    Here in Matthew 16 the Lord would seem to be touching indirectly on what He had spoken about on another occasion as recorded in Matthew 7. There He tells us that a person had built his house upon the sand; but then the rain descends, the floods come, and the wind blows, and that house is smitten; and it suddenly falls. But another person, Jesus went on to say, had built his house upon the rock; and though, as before, the rain descends, the floods come, and the wind blows, and these things beat upon that house, it does not fall (see vv.24-27). So that when the Lord subsequently declares that He will build His Church upon the rock, He shows us that His Church, like the house that is built upon the rock, will never fall. However much the rain may descend, the floods may arise, and the winds may blow, the House of God will not fall. Rains descending or not, floods coming or not, winds blowing or not—none of these constitutes any problem to this spiritual House. For it is built upon rock; and consequently, the Church is stable, fall-proof, and unshakable. Such is the basic nature of the Church.

    Note, too, that when Paul wrote to Timothy, he called “the house of God . . . the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3.15). The Church is like a pillar which is fixed firmly and cannot be shaken. It does not matter much if one shakes a chair, but to shake a house is of great concern. The fundamental nature of the Church is that it is built upon the Rock which is stable and unshakable. All the children of God who are built upon this Rock are stones. Peter himself wrote in this very same vein much later in his first letter: “ye also, as living stones, are built up a spiritual house” (2.5a). Each and every brother and sister is a living stone being built upon the Rock. So that in this construction, whatever is underneath is that which is above. Whatever the foundation is it is the same kind of material that the superstructure is, and vice-versa.

    In the Church there are no bricks, only stones. By sharp contrast, the tower of Babel had been built with bricks, for it had been constructed by men working with imitation stones. But in the Church there are no bricks, nothing of man-made imitations. The Church is built upon the Rock. Each one of us is like a stone before the Lord. And these stones are built together to be a spiritual House. So that we can very clearly see that the Church of God has this basic nature of stability.

    Now following upon all this, the Lord then makes this declaration: “and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it” (Matt. 16.18b). As we have seen, this unshakable thing of which the Lord speaks is called the Church. Its foundation is Rock which is something unshakable and firm, and its building or superstructure is of like material—that is, of stones—which is likewise not to be shaken. But if all this be true, then how can the ministries in the Church be found so often to be shakable and unreliable? This is the very matter we intend to talk about in our discussion from this point forward. Do please be very clear here that we are not discussing the matter of the Church; rather, we are going to deal with this matter of the ministers in the Church. When the Lord told Simon, “Thou art Peter,” He meant, “You are a stone.” Peter here represents all the ministers in the Church. All who work and serve must be stones. Though these stones are not as massive as the Rock, they nonetheless bear the same nature as the Rock which is that of firmness and unshakableness. Here, therefore, we see that a minister must also not be shaken, for is he not a stone? Yet we all know only too well that unfortunately too many are shaken and unreliable. And this is the very problem we hope now to address.

    Proceeding further, we note that the Lord continued in His teaching by saying: “I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matt. 16.19). The promise the Lord gives to the Church is also given to Peter. For please note that while in Matthew 18.18 (and cf. v.17) we see this promise given to the Church, here in Matthew 16 it is given to Peter personally. All this indicates that our Lord views Peter as a minister of the Church. The Lord gives him the keys of the kingdom of heaven that he may open its door. And we believe that following the Lord’s resurrection and ascension Peter did indeed open the door of the kingdom of heaven—first on the Day of Pentecost and later in the house of Cornelius. He opened the door to both the Jews and the Gentiles.

    Now as Peter—that is, as a stone—he can use the keys. But whenever he is not a Peter, that is to say, not a stone, he cannot use the keys. Today, not all who are called Peter are really Peter, just as not all who are called Israel are strong. A person’s name may indeed be Israel, but he is still a weak person. Here is a man whose name is Peter; to him the Lord gives the keys. When he is really Peter, when he is truly a stone, he can use the keys. Whatsoever he binds shall be bound, and whatsoever he looses shall be loosed.

    Hence, the acceptable inward constitution of a minister is found in his stable character. This is a fundamental requirement. When a person is wavering, he cannot be a minister before God, nor can the Church follow him. Some brothers and sisters have this underlying defect in character. They are easily shaken, always changing, ever oscillating. They are not stable and solid before God. Such people cannot serve the Church because they are not able to stand firm, and consequently they will be prevailed upon by the gates of Hades.

    Thank God for using Peter as an example in His word. God looks for such a man whose nature is the same as that of the foundation of the Church. The one who ministers must be a solid stone. Thank the Lord for choosing Peter as a sample, thus assuring us who later follow that He is able to transform us into such stability even as He eventually did in Simon Peter. This man here is indeed called Peter, yet he does not look like a Peter. His name is truly “a stone,” but his personality is like flowing water that constantly shifts its course: sometimes he is resolute, at other times he is vacillating; sometimes he is strong, at other times he is weak. The Lord puts him before us in order to teach us that before anyone is dealt with by God, his temperament is rather irresolute. Before he becomes a stone he cannot use the keys, neither is he of any special use before God. Not until his weak disposition is dealt with by the Lord can he be used by God.

    We thank the Lord that human character may be changed. It is not something unchangeable. Like Peter, a vacillating person can be transformed into a stable person. Under the burning light of the Lord, your tongue can be so purified that though you were by nature talkative you now become a man of few words. Under the reproach of the Lord, the laziness of the slothful dies out. When the Lord cursed the fig tree, it withered from the root. For where the Lord’s reproach and curse is, there is withering and death. If you have not met the Lord deeply, you may be able to live on in a happy-go-lucky manner. But once you have truly met Him, your flippant nature is shriveled up. By the touch of the Lord’s light, whether it comes by listening to the preaching of God’s word or through the open reproach of a brother, you are undone. At the reproach of the Lord, you come to your end.

    What we are therefore saying here concerns the formation of character or, more accurately said, the reconstruction in character. Many have a weak disposition, one which is inattentive, cold or lazy, but when they are met by the Lord, they shrink under God’s enlightenment. How gracious the Lord is in selecting Peter; else all the weak and wavering among us will consider themselves to be hopeless. Our Lord chooses a man, names him Peter, transforms him to be a stone, then puts the keys of the kingdom of heaven into his hand and brings him to the Church.
    by Published on 12-12-2012 11:16 PM     Number of Views: 838 
    1. Categories:
    2. Spiritual Warfare

    The Recovery of Ground

    One common principle underlies the way all ground is relinquished to evil spirits: it is through passivity, the inactivity of the will. If lost ground is ever to be recovered it is mandatory that the volition be reactivated. The Christian “henceforth must learn (a) to obey God’s will, (b) to resist the devil’s will, and (c) to exercise his own will in collaboration with the will of the other saints. Responsibility for recovering ceded territory rests chiefly on the will. It is the volition which became passive, hence it must be the volition which dispels passivity.

    The first measure the will undertakes is to resolve, that is, to set itself towards a definite direction. Having suffered much at the Bands of evil spirits but now enlightened by the truth and encouraged by the Holy Spirit, the child of God is led naturally to a new position of abhorring those wicked spirits. He accordingly resolves against all their works. He is determined to regain his freedom, be his own master, and drive off his enemy. The Spirit of God so works in him that his fury against the evil spirits gathers momentum. The more he suffers the more he hates; the more he ponders his plight the more furious he becomes. He resolves to experience a complete emancipation from the powers of darkness. Such a resolve is the first step towards the recovery of lost ground. If this resolution is real he will press on towards the goal no matter how fierce a fight the enemy may put up. The entire man supports his resolve to henceforth oppose the adversary.

    The Christian also should engage his will to choose, that is to decide the future he desires. In days of spiritual battle this choice can be very effective. He should ever and anon declare: I choose freedom; I want liberty; I refuse to be passive; I will use my own talents; I insist on knowing the wiles of the evil spirits; I wish for their defeat; I will sever every relationship with the powers of darkness; I oppose all their lies and excuses. Such a declaration of the will is highly beneficial in warfare. It expresses his choice, not simply his resolve, on these particular matters. The powers of darkness pay no attention to one’s resolve, but should he choose with his will to oppose them through the power of God then they most certainly shall flee. All this is related to the principle of the freedom of man’s will. Just as in the beginning the believer permitted the evil spirits to enter, so now he chooses the very opposite, the undercutting of any footing of the enemy.

    During this period of conflict the Christian’s will must be engaged actively in various operations. Beyond resolving and choosing, he also ought to resist. That is to say, his will must exert its force to contend with the evil spirits. He moreover should refuse—shut the door against—the entry of the enemy. By resisting he prohibits the evil spirits from further working; by refusing he cancels ...
    by Published on 10-01-2011 11:05 PM     Number of Views: 943 
    1. Categories:
    2. Atheist, Agnostic, Agtheist

    When I observe nature I see causation always, no hard evidence to the contrary, and that which does not exist can't cause anything because it doesn't exist, so something can't come from nothing.

    The only possibility then is there is an infinite regress of cause and effects naturally, but then I ask myself, that doesn't make sense because if that were true, we would have happened already having had an eternity to do so. And we would never exist because a past eternity would still be going on for eternity never reaching this point. So infinite regress is impossible and self-contradictory. That which is self-contradictory and impossible is false.

    So since nature can't come from nothing, nor always have existed in infinite regress, logically speaking the only possibility is nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, which would be uncreated, our uncreated Creator.

    The question then is not whether atheism is true, but who the uncreated Creator is?

    I take the position the Creator is accessible because that is loving, and the only 3 accessible faiths are Christianity, Islam and Hinduism. The rest are quite minuscule. I know Islam is false because you can't come along six centuries later without any evidence and claim Jesus didn't die on the cross.

    And I know Hinduism is false because its God Brahma is amoral, but how can the Creator have a morality below our own? Furthermore, I don't find coming back as a chicken if I am overly sinful adequately deals with my sin nature in this life. We really only need this one life to decide if we want to be with God for eternity (forgiven) or to be eternally separated from Him in Hell.

    Free will is not truly free if we don't have this free choice. And a chicken doesn't have sufficient self-consciousness and God-consciousness to have the opportunity to be turned back into a human again so that's just silly. A chicken brain doesn't have the capacity to hold a human brain.

    So that proves Christianity is correct and Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. He created us, and nothing that exists exists without Him having created it. There is no way to the Father but through the Son, and there is no other name under heaven by which one can be saved.

    Unless you confess Jesus as your Lord and Savior, He will deny you before the Father. Unless you accept Jesus who He truly is, who died on the cross for the sins of the whole world to save whosoever is willing (John 3.16) and resurrected the 3rd day, you won't be saved.

    The proof of the resurrection is icing on the cake, because nobody is able to find a naturalistic explanation to account for the origin of the disciples' beliefs in their eyewitness testimony to having seen Jesus alive from the dead in various group settings and setting up the first churches on their eyewitness testimony. We know group hallucinations are impossible and people don't willingly die for what they know is a lie when they could have saved their lives by telling the truth. And Jesus wouldn't have looked much like the risen Messiah if He somehow survived the cross all beat up, scourged down to the bone, nails in his hands and feet, thorns in his head and deprived of any sustenance for three days.