John 3 (King James Version)
3Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
8The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
So we understand from Jesus that being Born Again, is to accept Jesus as Our Savior and Lord, so the Spirit of God can indwell our bodies to help us live the Christian life.
1. The first proof the Spirit of God does not indwell President George Bush is his clear violation of Joel 3:2 (King James Version)
"I will also gather all nations, and will bring them down into the valley of Jehoshaphat, and will plead with them there for my people and for my heritage Israel, whom they have scattered among the nations, and parted my land."
Granted, this verse is talking about future judgment of nations that persecuted Israel. Notice God claims the land belongs to Him, not a people, or a government. God makes this clear again in the Torah:
Leviticus 25:23 (King James Version)
"The land shall not be sold for ever: for the land is mine, for ye are strangers and sojourners with me."
It is irelevant if Bush claims he is a replacement Christian, which I doubt he does. This is the belief that the Church has replaced Israel, and Israel has no part in the future with God. Bush can be a replacement Christian and not promote the giving away of God's land, which is what he wants to do. Does the Spirit of God indwell a person who blatantly contradicts the Word of the Spirit?
Speaking at the annual dinner of the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, Bush insisted that "Success in Iraq could also begin a new stage for Middle-Eastern peace and set in motion progress toward a truly democratic Palestinian state." 4 March 2003
Bush personally committed to a Palestinian State.
Michael Freund The Jerusalem Post,
[The writer served as Deputy Director of Communications & Policy Planning in the Israeli Prime Minister's Office from 1996 to 1999.] http://www.revelations.org.za/PalestinianState.htm#Bush
It is an insane belief to form a nation that wants to destroy Israel? How could a Christian believe this?
PLO Charter, July 1-17, 1968. These words are still in effect, the original charter still displayed by the Palestine legation to the UN and other Palestinian bodies. These words will never be repealed despite what the greatest terrorist, Yasser Arafat claimed:
Article 15: The liberation of Palestine, from an Arab viewpoint, is a national (qawmi) duty and it attempts to repel the Zionist and imperialist aggression against the Arab homeland, and aims at the elimination of Zionism in Palestine.
Article 22: Zionism is a political movement organically associated with international imperialism and antagonistic to all action for liberation and to progressive movements in the world. It is racist and fanatic in its nature, aggressive, expansionist, and colonial in its aims, and fascist in its methods. Israel is the instrument of the Zionist movement, and geographical base for world imperialism placed strategically in the midst of the Arab homeland to combat the hopes of the Arab nation for liberation, unity, and progress. Israel is a constant source of threat vis-a-vis peace in the Middle East and the whole world. Since the liberation of Palestine will destroy the Zionist and imperialist presence and will contribute to the establishment of peace in the Middle East.
Article 23: The demand of security and peace, as well as the demand of right and justice, require all states to consider Zionism an illegitimate movement, to outlaw its existence, and to ban its operations. http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace+Process/Guide+to+the+Peace+Process/The+Palestinian+National+Charter.htm
And this demonic state is what George Bush supports.
November 21, 2001
Colin Powell's Message in Biblical Perspective.
United States Secretary of State Colin Powell’s message on Monday in Louisville, Kentucky, was reported to represent the Bush Administration’s Middle East position. The Bush Administration is in favor of the United Nations Security Council “land for peace” concept as spelled out in Resolutions 242 and 338 (reducing Israel back to the pre-1967 borders).
http://www.revelations.org.za/PalestinianState.htm#Bush
Nabil Shaath says: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, "George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan." And I did, and then God would tell me, "George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq …" And I did. And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, "Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East." And by God I'm gonna do it.'"
Abu Mazen was at the same meeting and recounts how President Bush told him: "I have a moral and religious obligation. So I will get you a Palestinian state."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2005/10_october/06/bush.shtml
In June, US President George Bush stated in a speech, “I call upon the Palestinian people to elect new leaders” and for Israel, “I challenge Israel to take concrete steps to support the emergence of a viable, credible Palestinian state.”
http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/MiddleEast/Palestine/Background.asp
Helping to form a state that's prime goal is to destroy Israel is not something a Christian would do. God will never reject Israel, in the future, Israel will once again be God's people, although now, they have rejected their true Messiah. God has always rebuked His people when they disobey, but God has vowed by covenant to always be Israel's God.
"First, we are strengthening our financial commitment. Immediately after President Abbas expelled Hamas from the Palestinian government, the United States lifted financial restrictions on the Palestinian Authority that we had imposed. This year, we will provide the Palestinians with more than $190 million in American assistance -- including funds for humanitarian relief in Gaza. To build on this support, I recently authorized the Overseas Private Investment Corporation to join in a program that will help generate $228 million in lending to Palestinian businesses. Today, I announce our intention to make a direct contribution of $80 million to help Palestinians reform their security services -- a vital effort they're undertaking with the guidance of American General Keith Dayton. We will work with Congress and partners around the world to provide additional resources once a plan to build Palestinian institutions is in place. With all of this assistance, we are showing the Palestinian people that a commitment to peace leads to the generous support of the United States." George Bush July 16, 2007 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070716-7.html
March 22, 2005, Israel defies God by giving away his land. Israel hands over Tulkarem in the West Bank to the Palestinians. Bush supported this betrayal.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7183904
This information is plenty of proof that George Bush has affirmed the giving away of Israel's land in violation of Joel 3:2, and Lev 25:23. Can a true Christian have this belief? The answer is an emphatic no!
2. George Bush supports homosexuality, as he is believes in civil unions for gays. He has appointed more homosexuals to Federal office than any other President in history. This is another violation of several scriptures:
Proverbs 17:15 (King James Version)
"He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the LORD."
Leviticus 20:13 (King James Version)
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."
George Bush seems to always justify the wicked.
"I don't think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that's what a state chooses to do," the president stated. "[S]tates ought to be able to have the right to pass ... laws that enable people to, you know, be able to have rights, like others."
As noted by UPI, that is in sharp disagreement with the Republican Party platform. In fact, ABC's Gibson followed up with: "So the Republican platform on that point, as far as you're concerned, is wrong?" To which Bush replied: "Right." OCTOBER 24, 2004. http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/10/272004d.asp
http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/4/112001b.asp Bush nominates another homosexual to office, April 11, 2001.
Bush appoints yet another homosexual to Federal office violating the Law of Nature. http://www.baptiststandard.com/2001/6_4/pages/bush.html
Jesus affirmed the condemnation of homosexuality by affirming the law:
Matthew 5:17-18 (King James Version)
17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
3. George Bush believes The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, is also the el ilah(allah) the moon god of the kabah of islam. When Mohammed rounded up his pirates to take over the world, he attacked the kabah in Arabia to destroy the three hundred idols there, took the name of the chief deity allah (el ilah), the god of all the gods. The chief deity was named "sin" who was the moon god, this is evidenced by the artifacts of crescent moons excavated in Arabia, along with the crescent moon on islamic flags, on top of churches, and the holy month of ramadan, which starts and ends with the appearing of the crescent moon. Muslims are worshipping the moon god.
The sabeans did not initially revolt or misunderstand who Mohammed's god was, because they already knew who allah was. “Allah” cannot be “God” if “allah” is the Arabic word for “god” because in the Qur’an Allah says that “Ilah” is the Arabic word for “God” and that “Allah” is the “Ilah’s” name. If that is not true, the ilah named Allah is lying, proving that he is not what Mohammad claimed him to be. If allah is the word for god than the islamic god has no name.
Oct. 26, 2004,
Bush on Religion and God
President Says He Believes Muslims and Christians Pray to Same God
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=193746&page=1
4. George Bush promotes the murder of unborn children, which the Law of Nature calls murder:
Bush Signs Title X Funding Increase for 2005
Planned Parenthood's Abortion Funding Increased
President George W. Bush and the Republican-majority Congress Increased Title X to record $288.3 million in FY 2005 on 12/8/04Title X is one of two major federal government funding sources for Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the nation's largest chain of abortion centers (murdering over 244,000 unborn human beings per year by surgical abortion alone).
The Title X program includes funding for contraceptive birth control; birth control that causes chemical abortions; and birth control for unmarried adolescents, even if their parents object to the federal government giving their children hormonal drugs and devices with which to fornicate.The Title X program is also one of the principal federal government funding mechanisms for Planned Parenthood Federation of America (founded by Margaret Sanger), the nation's largest chain of child-murder-by-abortion centers.
http://www.covenantnews.com/lefemine050208.htm
George Bush has approved funding almost every year for abortions.
Judges 13:5 (King James Version)
"For, lo, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and no razor shall come on his head: for the child shall be a Nazarite unto God from the womb: and he shall begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines."
Conceiving is part of the birth of a son. It is not conceiving and bear tissue, but a human being.
In the end, George Bush is a pro homosexual, pro murder by abortion, anti-constitution, anti-Jesus Christ ecumenist. There are also many more violations of the Constitution that George Bush has committed, including Article I, Section 8, and the Fourth Amendment. Do not be deceived, George Bush is an enemy of Jesus Christ! Beware.
25 comments:
Interesting.
I have been suspicious about the claim that Bush was a genuine Christian. Jimmy Carter claimed to be born again, and it proved to be his ticket to office. During his presidency, he did more to advance the move toward globalism, just as Bush has been doing.
I don't, however, believe that Bush's lack of support for the Zionists in Israel disqualifies him for being a Christian. We are mistaken if we believe that because God owns the deed to Israel means that the Zionists deserve to be supported by Christians.
Americans (and sadly, the evangelical community) have been totally deceived into believing that we need to support the Zionist government. They are not Jews (and Judaism changed when they entered Babylon, so Judaism is not a God-given religion, for they have blatantly REJECTED THEIR MESSIAH) and to not want to rebuild the temple in order to fulfill the law of Moses. The Zionists have a compact with the Masons and the Jesuits (or so I have heard) to rebuild the temple for the purpose of escorting the Lucifarian New World Order and a new world religion. Just read the book of Revelation, and scrap the media.
Jesus warned that the elect might be deceived; and I observe it happening in the Western world. Distinguished preachers have denounced those who do not "support Israel," and yet they denounce those Christians who advocate the need to practice virtue as "legalists." I would ask: "How can THEY be born again, if they renounce the need of Christians to exhibit virtue in their lives, and yet support a nation that persecutes believers in Jesus???"
Call me anti-semitic if you like, but Paul and Peter, the rest of the Apostles and early Christians, yea, Jesus Himself would be classified as such in the contemporary Christian world.
I believe that Bush is not a Christian because he has repeatedly broken his vow, before Almighty God, to support the Constitution, and especially because he stood in front of the world and said that Muslims and Christians worship the same God, before a congregation in England, in 2003, if I recall correctly.
"Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day [the Day of the Lord, or, Christ's return] will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition [also "apostasy" in the NASV, which means, "falling away from The Faith"], who opposes and exalts himself above all that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God."
-- 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4, NKJV
Let me add that I am not all for giving away to the Arabs, who are controlled by the Muslims. They have a corrupt religion, and also aim at world dominance. The only person who has a right to rule the world is Jesus. (see Psalm 2, and Psalm 24:1).
I don't, however, believe that Bush's lack of support for the Zionists in Israel disqualifies him for being a Christian.>>
I agree.
We are mistaken if we believe that because God owns the deed to Israel means that the Zionists deserve to be supported by Christians.>>
I disagree. The Bible is clear, Israel, the nation composed of natural descendents of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are forever God's people.
Genesis 12
2And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:
3And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.
The context is Abraham's seed, which is his nation. God's current people(Christians) are to bless and support the nation of Israel. This command has never been abrogated, and never will.
Americans (and sadly, the evangelical community) have been totally deceived into believing that we need to support the Zionist government. They are not Jews (and Judaism changed when they entered Babylon, so Judaism is not a God-given religion, for they have blatantly REJECTED THEIR MESSIAH)>>
See the post above. I understand your feelings but this is not true. The Hebrews have kept their ethnicity and blood line, by the Providence of God.
In the Lord
"Our Founding Truth":
"The Bible is clear, Israel, the nation composed of natural descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are forever God's people.
Genesis 12
2And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:
3And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.
The context is Abraham's seed, which is his nation. God's current people(Christians) are to bless and support the nation of Israel. This command has never been abrogated, and never will."
All due respect, but your view echoes the view that most of the evangelical community have. They have misinterpreted the above Scripture, failing to take it in the light of the New Testament.
In the letters which Paul wrote to the Romans and the Galatians, he makes perfectly clear who the "descendants of Abraham" are.
"For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was NOT THROUGH THE LAW, but THROUGH THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF FAITH. For if those who are of the Law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise is nullified." Romans 4:13-14, NASV
"Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham." Galatians 3:7, NASV
The evangelicals have gotten it all backwards -- the Christians are not supposed to be blessing Israel, or else we are cursed; Israel is in big trouble with God because they persecute the TRUE Jews (those who have accepted Jesus as Messiah). How can God have a working covenant with a people who have rejected it, and refused it repeatedly? God promised that Abraham's physical (but esp. his spiritual) descendants would not be wiped out, and He promised this for Abraham's sake. But that does not mean that God is closer to Jews (referring to which religion they have) than to other non-believers. God is not partial.
One short side-note on carefully reading the above passage:
(1) Notice that God did not say "them" (referring to Abraham's descendants); He said "THEE," referring to ABRAHAM.
(2) How does one "bless" the descendants of Abraham, if that is what God is really referring to? Does that verse mean that Christians are to expect our public officials to be the most friendly and supportive of the Zionists (for info on them, I would refer you to the work of Ted Pike, who wrote a book on the subject), or to give their govt. money and weapons? Like I said, I don't support the Muslims attempts to wipe Israel off the map, and I believe that God does have a plan as far as the Jews are concerned, but it is for the sake of HIS ELECT (those who serve Jesus), not because Israel is God's old favorite. Study the New Testament, and pay careful attention to the books of Acts, Romans,Galatians, and Hebrews. The Old Covenant is not on God's agenda -- there is a new and better covenant (one in which Judaism is replaced with JESUS) that God holds ALL nations equally accountable under.
It think my response is long enough, but I hope I have made my point "comprehensive" (LOL).
"For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was NOT THROUGH THE LAW, but THROUGH THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF FAITH. For if those who are of the Law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise is nullified." Romans 4:13-14, NASV>>
This is regarding justification not people? No where will you find Christians replacing Israel. It is true, right now, anyone who doesn't have Christ is condemned, including Israel, but in the future Israel, mourns for Jesus in the "time of Jacobs trouble" We are saved by faith, not by the works of the Law. That is what Paul is talking about.
Israel is in big trouble>>
The same as everyone else, including the guy without Jesus walking on the street. God is definitely working for Israel, even in their fallen condition. The seven day war as evidence.
because they persecute the TRUE Jews (those who have accepted Jesus as Messiah).>>
I doubt you'll find this in the Bible. We haven't replaced the Jews, we are grafted in.
How can God have a working covenant with a people who have rejected it, and refused it repeatedly?>>
The seven day war is perfect proof. Israel had 6 working tanks against over two hundred tanks and five nations! One of the prophets said if the universe can be explored, then Israel will cease to be my people. The implication is evident.
God promised that Abraham's physical (but esp. his spiritual) descendants would not be wiped out, and He promised this for Abraham's sake. But that does not mean that God is closer to Jews (referring to which religion they have) than to other non-believers. God is not partial.>>
Of course, but this is not the issue.
(1) Notice that God did not say "them" (referring to Abraham's descendants); He said "THEE," referring to ABRAHAM.>>
The nation is a part of thee in those verses. The natural descendents of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
(2) How does one "bless" the descendants of Abraham, if that is what God is really referring to? Does that verse mean that Christians are to expect our public officials to be the most friendly and supportive of the Zionists (for info on them, I would refer you to the work of Ted Pike, who wrote a book on the subject), or to give their govt. money and weapons?>>
I never said they were being blessed right now. I said God is protecting their existence, and all the nations should bless them instead of persecute them, and this will happen for eternity.
but it is for the sake of HIS ELECT (those who serve Jesus), not because Israel is God's old favorite.>>
Israel is God's favorite, as in many times, God says Israel is "the apple of my eye"
Thanks for the post, I appreciate it.
Finally able to get back to you.
I never said that Christians are going to replace Israel. What I was saying was that Jews are not closer to God or have greater favor with God than other unbelievers because they are descendants of Abraham, or because works in favor of their being preserved as a people. My point was that God considers those who believe in Jesus Christ in faith are the true "descendants of Abraham," just like Paul said. The Old Covenant that God had with Israel through the Law is obsolete; it was a "shadow of the things to come" -- the New Covenant under Jesus Christ. At the end of your comment, you say that "Israel is God's favorite," because He said in the Bible that Israel was the "apple of His eye." I don't know where that is in the Bible; if so, it does not mean that Israel is God's favorite nation, or favorite race of people (He has none). I don't know of any such passage in the Bible (unless you can show me where). All I know is that that same phrase appears in the Torah (or the Talmud, I can't remember which one -- definitely the writings of Jewish rabbis after Christ's death), and the writings of Jewish rabbis do not qualify as Scripture.
God has a plan for Israel -- that is true, but the Zionist agenda is contrary to God's law. If you are looking at the works of Ted Pike, and think it through, and study it out, I think that this can be asserted with a great degree of confidence. Moral of the story: Don't trust the media.
Hopefully I have made my standpoint clear enough for you to understand where I am coming from.
What I was saying was that Jews are not closer to God or have greater favor with God than other unbelievers because they are descendants of Abraham, or because works in favor of their being preserved as a people. My point was that God considers those who believe in Jesus Christ in faith are the true "descendants of Abraham," just like Paul said. The Old Covenant that God had with Israel through the Law is obsolete; it was a "shadow of the things to come" -- the New Covenant under Jesus Christ.>>
I agree with you as well.
At the end of your comment, you say that "Israel is God's favorite," because He said in the Bible that Israel was the "apple of His eye.">>
God says this several times.
Deuteronomy 32:10
He found him in a desert land, and in the waste howling wilderness; he led him about, he instructed him, he kept him as the apple of his eye.
Psalm 17:8
Keep me as the apple of the eye, hide me under the shadow of thy wings,
Proverbs 7:2
Keep my commandments, and live; and my law as the apple of thine eye.
Lamentations 2:18
Their heart cried unto the LORD, O wall of the daughter of Zion, let tears run down like a river day and night: give thyself no rest; let not the apple of thine eye cease.
Zechariah 2:8
For thus saith the LORD of hosts; After the glory hath he sent me unto the nations which spoiled you: for he that toucheth you toucheth the apple of his eye.
Read this chapter in Zechariah, it is talking about the millennium. So this for sure spells it out, Israel will always be the apple of His eye. This covenant is not because of Israel, but because of Abraham and his faith.
Israel will always be the apple of God's eye. They are his choosen people, even though they've rejected Him right now. Do you see that? At this moment they are not God's choosen people, but that does not mean replacement. It is just an interval where Jews without Jesus are not saved.
Here is what I mean:
Jeremiah 31
36If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever.
37Thus saith the LORD; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the LORD.
Do you see that? Israel could worship flagpoles right now. They couldn't get out of the covenant if they wanted to, which right now, they do.
that is true, but the Zionist agenda is contrary to God's law.>>
I don't know where you come up with this, now you should know, it doesn't matter what their agenda is. We are to Bless Israel because God says so. Remember, at the second coming they will see Jesus, and then realize their apostasy, and finally repent.
Happy Constitution Day!
Today was established the Alexander Hamilton Institute (their blog here). Check it out!
Thanks for the info on the Hamilton Institute. Looking at their board, Zuckert, Pangle and Mansfield, are scholars I closely follow, especially on Locke. They all argue that Locke's key teachings (i.e., the "state of nature") are extra-biblical and go so far (farther than I would) to assert Locke purposefully intended to subvert the traditional Christian understanding of nature. I would simply argue that Locke's key teachings were wholly alien to the Bible and Christianity and leave it at that.
Hey Jon,
Did Mr. Knapton respond to Frazer?
No he didn't.
He's free to though.
Jon:
Exactly what are Locke's beliefs on the state of nature, and how are they contrary to the Bible? In the past, you have seemed to have discussed Hobbes' state of nature theory, and then claim that Locke's was unbiblical. Perhaps Locke may have been at odds with Calvinism, but not with biblical Christianity. Calvinism's tenets of predestination, and the view of all men being guilty of Adam's sin (as opposed to the biblical truth that we inherited Adam's sinful NATURE), and the opposition of reason to God's will and revelation, are among the most repugnant to the Scriptures. Locke's theories were no doubt contrary to such Calvinistic tenets, but not because he was a secular humanist.
I have already shown a quote from him that was as clear as a bell that the Bible formed the basis of his political beliefs:
"The holy scripture is to me, and always will be, the constant guide of my assent; and I shall always hearken to it, as containing infallible truth, relating to things of the highest concernment [sic]. And I wish I could say, there were no mysteries in it: I acknowledge there are to me, and I fear always will be. But where I want the evidence of things, there yet is ground enough for me to believe, because God has said it: and I shall presently condemn and quit any opinion of mine, as soon as I am shown that it is contrary to any revelation in the holy scripture."
Nice quote Herc,
Based on what I have read on Locke, and the quotes you've provided, he definitely believed in the Triune Godhead, as well as the supernatural.
If Locke denied original sin, and eternal damnation, that is his problem. It isn't an essential of salvation, so it's not a big issue with me; although, it seems Locke may have believed them, myself, I haven't investigated the issue deeply:
"This is so clear in these cited places, and so much the current of the New Testament, that nobody can deny, but that the doctrine of the gospel is, that death came on all men by Adam’s sin; only they differ about the signification of the word death: for some will have it to be a state of guilt, wherein not only he, but all his posterity was so involved, that every one descended of him deserved endless torment, in hell-fire. I shall say nothing more here, how far, in the apprehensions of men, this consists with the justice and goodness of God, having mentioned it above: but it seems a strange way of understanding a law, which requires the plainest and directest words, that by death should be meant eternal life in misery. Could any one be supposed, by a law, that says, “For felony thou shalt die;” not that he should lose his life; but be kept alive in perpetual, exquisite torments? And would any one think himself fairly dealt with, that was so used?
To this, they would have it be also a state of necessary sinning, and provoking God in every action that men do: a yet harder sense of the word death than the other. God says, that “in the day that thou eatest of the forbidden fruit, thou shalt die;” i. e. thou and thy posterity shall be, ever after, incapable of doing any thing, but what shall be sinful and provoking to me and shall justly deserve my wrath and indignation. Could a worthy man be supposed to put such terms upon the obedience of his subjects? Much less can the righteous God be supposed, as a punishment of one sin, wherewith he is displeased, to put man under the necessity of sinning continually, and so multiplying the provocation. The reason of this strange interpretation, we shall perhaps find, in some mistaken places of the New Testament. I must confess, by death here, I can understand nothing but a ceasing to be, the losing of all actions of life and sense. Such a death came on Adam, and all his posterity, by his first disobedience in paradise; under which death they should have lain for ever, had it not been for the redemption by Jesus Christ. If by death, threatened to Adam, were meant the corruption of human nature in his posterity, ’tis strange, that the New Testament should not any-where take notice of it, and tell us, that corruption seized on all, because of Adam’s transgression, as well as it tells us so of death. But, as I remember, every one’s sin is charged upon himself only."
Reasonableness of Christianity.
Locke did make some strange statements, that last part having Locke seemingly denying original sin; however, I could be wrong.
And though every christian, both as a deist and a christian, be obliged to study both the law of nature and the revealed law.
Second Vindication
How is a deist a Christian?
Hello, OFT. Sorry I couldn't get back to you sooner -- I've had my hands quite full.
I am not sure what you meant when you said that belief in "original sin" (different people have different definitions of that term, it seems), and a belief in eternal damnation were not essential to salvation.
How can we even know what we are saved from if we don't believe that man has a sinful (Law-breaking) nature which he inherited from Adam, and that those who do not turn from this nature will suffer eternal punishment? Maybe I am misunderstanding you somehow, but such beliefs are very essential to salvation.
As far as Locke is concerned, he seems to have believed in those things. He appeared to believe that man inherited the curse of Adam's sinful nature, but he didn't seem to buy the strict Calvinistic point of view, that humans, the moment they are conceived in the womb, are going straight to Hell because of their forefather Adam's sin. This Calvinistic tenet is not clearly inculcated at all in the Bible, unless someone can show me an unequivocal text to the contrary.
Yes, some of Locke's statements are interesting. I am a little familiar with the text about the original sin doctrine that you quoted. Here, he appears to be contesting the Calvinistic definition of "original sin," which I described above. I am not completely sure that he is contesting the idea that man had a corrupt nature inherited from Adam. He seems to say that although that idea is true, that is not what the "death came to all men through Adam"-passage is talking about when it says "death."
I am not an expert on Locke's writings, or his theology. I intend to read The Reasonableness of Christianity, which he wrote, in its entirety some day, but as of late I have only seen it in bits and pieces -- and even they are very meaty food for thought.
Hope that blog you are working on is going well. Hope to see more posts from you again (but if I don't, I can't blame you -- I haven't either 0:) ).
How can we even know what we are saved from if we don't believe that man has a sinful (Law-breaking) nature which he inherited from Adam, and that those who do not turn from this nature will suffer eternal punishment? Maybe I am misunderstanding you somehow, but such beliefs are very essential to salvation.>>
It's amazing Locke and others would believe this doctrine, that is based on a weak foundation to say the least.
The quote I posted of Locke's Reasonableness is clear to see. Locke couldn't believe that a Holy, Just, God would grant a new born baby, with a sinful nature; he elaborates on this in his first and second vindication.
He thought it was unfair God would do that; therefore, he rejected it. He believed every man sins, the responsibility being on him.
"wherein not only he, but all his posterity was so involved, that every one descended of him deserved endless torment, in hell-fire. I shall say nothing more here, how far, in the apprehensions of men, this consists with the justice and goodness of God, having mentioned it above: but it seems a strange way of understanding a law, which requires the plainest and directest words, that by death should be meant eternal life in misery.>
You see, Locke had the wrong view on original sin. He thought God condemned everyone at birth, him, not understanding the age of accountability doctrine.
If he would have put David's verses together, he would have understood, how God judges us.
"in sin did my mother conceive me"
self explanatory, and also, when David said he would see his new born son again, after he died.
Locke didn't believe in original sin, because he had an incorrect view of it.
Because of this incorrect view, he could not believe babies would go to hell, besides them, instead, believing in obliteration? or nothingness after death:
"but it seems a strange way of understanding a law, which requires the plainest and directest words, that by death should be meant eternal life in misery. Could any one be supposed, by a law, that says, “For felony thou shalt die;” not that he should lose his life; but be kept alive in perpetual, exquisite torments? And would any one think himself fairly dealt with, that was so used?"
"Much less can the righteous God be supposed, as a punishment of one sin, wherewith he is displeased, to put man under the necessity of sinning continually, and so multiplying the provocation."
The reason of this strange interpretation, we shall perhaps find, in some mistaken places of the New Testament.>.
Locke thought original sin was a wrong interpretation of scripture. He was wrong.
"I must confess, by death here, I can understand nothing but a ceasing to be, the losing of all actions of life and sense.">
Obliteration and nothingness.
"If by death, threatened to Adam, were meant the corruption of human nature in his posterity, ’tis strange, that the New Testament should not any-where take notice of it, and tell us, that corruption seized on all, because of Adam’s transgression, as well as it tells us so of death. But, as I remember, every one’s sin is charged upon himself only."
Reasonableness of Christianity.>>
Locke didn't believe the New Testament taught original sin.
"But, as I remember, every one’s sin is charged upon himself only."
He opens himself up to many problems, which is why he received so much heat. This implys the possibility of man not sinning, which is only theoretically possible by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, which can only work in a person, if asked in, so a baby cannot repent, or trust in Jesus.
From what I've read and understood, the foundational churches of history(Baptists) etc. There are five fundamentals of the faith, which MUST be accepted to be a Christian.
1. Inerrancy of the bible in the original autographs. Doubting this, and everything else cannot stand.
2. Virgin Birth and Deity of Jesus Christ.
3. Physical Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ.
4. Vicarious Blood Atonement for Sin.
5. Salvation by Grace Alone Through Faith Alone
Some of these are connected; can't have Deity without virgin birth, atonement without death, Deity and Trinity. etc. If you accept Jesus' Deity and deny the Trinity; The Holy Spirit is not God? They can't be separated because Acts 5:3,5 says The Holy Spirit is God.
Also, does the bible teach the second coming is mandatory for salvation?
In the Lord.
Hey Herc,
How can I put pictures on the left side of the blog? Do you have any ideas for my blog?
Hello, OFT. I am finally able to get back to you.
"Also, does the bible teach the second coming is mandatory for salvation?"
I believe the answer is "yes." See 1 Corinthians 15:
"Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. ... But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. ... In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed." (verses 1-2, 13-18, 52)
Also consider Revelation 22:
"And behold, I [Jesus] am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to every one according to his work. ..." and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book" (verses 12, 19).
Yes, such a belief is essential to salvation.
As to your blog: This may be a bit complicated. I think you have a one-sidebar template, and your sidebar is on the right. There are templates that you can use that have 2 sidebars (one on each side of the main middle column, where your posts appear, or the two sidebars may be beside each other, either on the left or right of the main column). You can replace the template that you have with one of those presented on the link above, if you REALLY want to put pictures on the left side of your main column. HOWEVER: if you do decide to replace your current template with a different one, BE SURE to save all of your posts, widgets, links, etc., in a Notepad Doc or some other separate file, because sometimes when you change your template, those files may disappear from your blog, and if they are not saved, you may have to rebuild and rewrite your blog from scratch. :(
You ask if I have any ideas for your blog. Do you mean ideas for the design of the appearance, or pictures to put up, or topics to write on?
If you mean ideas for ways to design your blog's appearance:
I am not sure of the extent to which your blog allows you to change colors. If you look at my blogs, I like to use the colors of the American flag (red, white, and blue), because they fit the subject of America that those blogs cover. You may change the main background (which is grey right now) to, say, red or blue, and then change the header of your blog to the other color that you didn't choose for your background. This isn't what you HAVE to do; but it is just an example. You can also use tan, or brown to give the old-style feel to the blog. Whatever your creativity may dictate.
Perhaps you have noticed that the main background on my Hamilton and my Founders blog has the appearance of parchment. You can add pictures to the main background of your blog, if you fiddle with some of the html of your template. If you sign into Blogger, go to the revise "template" of your blog, and select "edit html," you see this long text box of html "scribble." The first section is full of "Variable" 's, and then "value=" 's at the left of a bunch of rows. Shortly after that section you will see, if you scroll down, a "background:" After this colon, you press the spacebar once and type "url ();" You insert the web location of the picture you want to put in your main background in between that pair of "()", and then select the button "preview." A new tab or window will open which will show you what your blog will look like if you saved those changes. If you like the picture you added, you may hit the bottom "save template," and if you don't like the picture, than you select "clear edits." It's a bit of a touchy process, so if you have any questions or problems with this, let me know and I will try to explain it. I am no html expert, but I can do enough.
If you wanted ideas for pictures to put up, I have several folders on my PC of the Founding Fathers and early scenes of American history, so if you want a particular picture, you can contact me by commenting on one of my blogs, and I will get it for you. If you want to search for, say, pictures of the Founding Fathers, can be found here and here.
If you wanted ideas for topics to write on, I don't know how much help I can be, because it all depends on what you write about the best. You could probably write on, say, the religious lives of the Founding Fathers -- discovering what their faith was by looking at what they said and did in their lives. For example, this is what I have been doing with Alexander Hamilton on my Hamilton blog for a while. Maybe you can do something similar with a Founder with whose life and writings you are well-acquainted. That's just my two cents.
I best be going now, as my comment is long enough already.
Happy to talk to you.
~Herc
More pictures can be found here .
I don't think the deciding factor whether a person is "born again" or not is whether this person "supports" Israel. This is a new doctrine and a dangerous one.
You'd said, "3And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.
The context is Abraham's seed, which is his nation. God's current people(Christians) are to bless and support the nation of Israel. This command has never been abrogated, and never will."
This is an error. The context is not the nation of Israel nor the Jews. This is unscriptural.
When God said He would bless Abraham and his seed, God was referring to Jesus. See Galatians for a perfect interpretation. No where in the Bible does it command us to "bless" the Jews so we can be blessed or if we "curse" the Jews we will be cursed. If anything, it is Christians who are the true Israel of God.
GALATIANS 3
1 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?
2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?..
6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. (!!!!!!)
9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.
10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse...
13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.
16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. (!!!!!)
17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator...
26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
I do not know where the doctrine of "God commands us to support Israel" comes from. I see it nowhere in the scriptures. Not even the apostles did so. What a curious doctrine.
As for President Bush, or anyone for that matter, is their decision to repent from dead works in obtaining righteousness before God, and trust in the work of His Son. This is turn-- a true conversion-- causes one to be "obedient to the faith" and live out one's life as Jesus lived His. The basics are, of course, the tenets set forth at the Jerusalem Council (refrain from blood, meat offered to idols, and sexual immorality).
President Bush may be considered a Christian by today's shifting standards (he owns a Bible, he goes to church, blah blah). But breaking one's oath and being a traitorous deceiver are some rankles in his claim.
By the way, when God says that the nation of Israel is his favorite, it is not talking about intrinsic value or worth. God does not consider Israel of more worth or value than other peoples. Rather, it means that He chose them (because of the faithful patriarchs and His covenant with them!) to reveal Himself to them first.
When we say God has not forgotten them or turned His back on them, it does not mean that God will favor them above others and reward them even though they are disobedient. It just means that God has not forgotten his promise to them-- and included in the promise was blessing for obedience and punishment for disobedience. Unless they repent of their dead works and arrogance and receive Y'shua as the offering for their sin, they have no place in the olive tree. This is tragic, because the olive tree was made for them first (first as in for those who labored not as in first in value). Paul says that a remnant will be saved (as does Isaiah), but nowhere does it say that God will reward them because of their genes. It just means that God gives them the opportunity to repent and receive first, because they worked for it first. The requirement under the new covenant is faith in Jesus Christ.
It pains me to see Christians exalt the Jewish people by teaching that we Christians somehow have to support the Jews. Christians have no idea how this puffs the Jews up and solidifies their arrogance against God. Believe me, I know...
Hi !.
You re, I guess , perhaps very interested to know how one can manage to receive high yields .
There is no need to invest much at first. You may start to receive yields with as small sum of money as 20-100 dollars.
AimTrust is what you thought of all the time
AimTrust represents an offshore structure with advanced asset management technologies in production and delivery of pipes for oil and gas.
Its head office is in Panama with affiliates around the world.
Do you want to become really rich in short time?
That`s your choice That`s what you desire!
I feel good, I began to get real money with the help of this company,
and I invite you to do the same. It`s all about how to choose a correct companion who uses your savings in a right way - that`s it!.
I earn US$2,000 per day, and my first investment was 500 dollars only!
It`s easy to start , just click this link http://ynugaruki.envy.nu/cabybe.html
and lucky you`re! Let`s take our chance together to become rich
Good day !.
You may , perhaps very interested to know how one can manage to receive high yields .
There is no need to invest much at first. You may begin to get income with as small sum of money as 20-100 dollars.
AimTrust is what you thought of all the time
AimTrust represents an offshore structure with advanced asset management technologies in production and delivery of pipes for oil and gas.
Its head office is in Panama with structures around the world.
Do you want to become really rich in short time?
That`s your chance That`s what you really need!
I feel good, I began to take up real money with the help of this company,
and I invite you to do the same. It`s all about how to choose a correct companion utilizes your money in a right way - that`s the AimTrust!.
I earn US$2,000 per day, and my first deposit was 1 grand only!
It`s easy to get involved , just click this link http://elyhumyxuv.kogaryu.com/xujyryb.html
and go! Let`s take this option together to feel the smell of real money
wow.. i'm very
enjoy reading your post. great.
Post a Comment