Understanding the Jesus of the Cults
Topic: Apologetics

You will know them by there fruit. Fruit also means that you need to test or prove there teachings. Someone could have fruit of love etc but what are they teaching, that is the fruit we need to test.

Do Christians believe in three God's?
Topic: Questions Answered
Question:

"Why do Christians say they believe that there is one God, but then they say that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are also God? Doesn't that mean Christians believe in three Gods?"

Answer:

Christians believe that there is one God who exists in three Persons. This can be a difficult concept to understand, but it can be proven from the Bible.

We can demonstrate from both the Old and New Testaments that there is only one God:


"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one." (Deuteronomy 6:4)
"I am the LORD, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God. I will strengthen you, though you have not acknowledged me, so that from the rising of the sun to the place of its setting men may know there is none besides me. I am the LORD, and there is no other." (Isaiah 45:5-6)

""The most important [commandment]," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one."" (Mark 12:29)

"So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one." (1 Corinthians 8:4)

"A mediator, however, does not represent just one party; but God is one." (Galatians 3:20)

"Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen." (1 Timothy 1:17)

"For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Timothy 2:5)

"I charge you to keep this command without spot or blame until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, which God will bring about in his own time-- God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen." (1 Timothy 6:13-16)

So the Bible clearly says that there is only one God.



In my article called Is Jesus really God? I showed that Jesus Christ is God. In the following passages we can see that the Father is also God:


"Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." (1 Corinthians 1:3)
"always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ." (Ephesians 5:20)

"and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." (Philippians 2:11)

So the Bible clearly says that Jesus is God and that the Father is God.



The following passages prove that the Holy Spirit is also God. Notice that the Holy Spirit was involved in the Creation of the world (only God can create things), the Holy Spirit is in all places (only God is omnipresent), the Holy Spirit searches all things (only God is omniscient, meaning that He searches and knows all things), and that the Holy Spirit can be blasphemed (only God can be blasphemed). Also notice that when Ananias lied to the Holy Spirit he was actually lying to God:


"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." (Genesis 1:1-2)
"Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence? If I go up to the heavens, you are there; if I make my bed in the depths, you are there." (Psalms 139:7-8)

"but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God." (1 Corinthians 2:10-11)

"And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come." (Matthew 12:31-32)

"Then Peter said, "Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? Didn't it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God."" (Acts 5:3-4)

So the Bible clearly says that the Holy Spirit is God. The Father and the Son (Jesus) are divine Persons, and the Holy Spirit is a divine Person as well. To prove that the Holy Spirit is a Person, notice in the following passages that the Spirit is referred to as "He" and that He does things which involve intellect, will, and feeling, such as convicting, guiding, revealing, searching, knowing, and teaching. The Holy Spirit also speaks, hears, and can be grieved. In addition, we can have fellowship with the Holy Spirit. These are all characteristics of a person and not of an impersonal "force" (as some people consider the Holy Spirit to be):


"But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor [the Holy Spirit] will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. When he comes, he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment ... But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come." (John 16:7-8, 13)
"but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God." (1 Corinthians 2:10-11)

"for the Holy Spirit will teach you at that time what you should say." (Luke 12:12)

"Whenever you are arrested and brought to trial, do not worry beforehand about what to say. Just say whatever is given you at the time, for it is not you speaking, but the Holy Spirit." (Mark 13:11)

"The Spirit told Philip, "Go to that chariot and stay near it."" (Acts 8:29)

"And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption." (Ephesians 4:30)

"May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all." (2 Corinthians 13:14)

"If you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if any comfort from his love, if any fellowship with the Spirit, if any tenderness and compassion, then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and purpose." (Philippians 2:1-2)

So the Bible clearly says that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all divine Persons.



Finally, notice that all three Persons of the Trinity are doing different things in the following passage, all at the same time. Jesus is being baptized, the Holy Spirit is descending like a dove onto Jesus, and the Father is speaking from heaven:


"As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him. And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."" (Matthew 3:16-17)
This shows that each Person of the Trinity is distinct, and that all three can interact with each other. In other words, they are not three parts of the same Person. For example, I am a husband, a father, a son, an employee, etc., but each of these facets of "me" cannot speak to or interact with the others. Although I can wear different "hats" at different times, I am only one person. However, the Bible says that there is one God, but He exists at all times in three distinct Persons.



Conclusion

The doctrine of the Trinity is difficult for us to comprehend, but it would be presumptuous of us to expect to understand everything about the infinite God with our finite, limited minds. We can see that the Bible clearly says that there is one God Who eternally exists in three divine Persons.



I hope this has been helpful, and may the Lord abundantly bless you as you study His Word!

Bible Study orginally found here.

ATTENTION: Just because I use an article from another site doesn't mean, I endorse all doctrine on that site. Everything must be examined in light of God's Word.

If there are no absolutes to gauge society, then society becomes the absolute.)
Topic: Pro Life


"The decision to have an abortion should be a matter between a woman, her doctor, her family, her conscience and her God." Gen. Colin Powell ABC TV’s 20/20 Sept. 15, 1995

Some time ago our organization commissioned a nationally known research and marketing firm to determine why many people state they believe an unborn child is alive, but also state that they are pro-choice (for abortion). This seems like a contradiction.

Research found that this group of people, when faced with an unplanned pregnancy does not view abortion as bad vs. good (having an abortion against giving birth), but bad vs. bad. They believe that abortion is bad because it causes a disruption in their lifestyle, or a sort of death of self. So, they choose what they consider to be the lesser of two evils – what they consider best for them now. It is interesting to note that morals, as outlined by Holy Scripture and centuries of tradition, never really enter into their decision making; a classic example of the modern day theology of simply "looking out for number one."

Why? Because these people have set their own standard for morals. Suggestions, not commandments, as defined by their own god. I knew it would come to this!

The newest pro-choice slogan states that the decision to have an abortion should be "between a woman, her conscience, her doctor, her family and her god." Note, it’s her god, not just God. God and conscience are becoming the last refuge of the pro-abortion scoundrels.

Reference to her god – not just God as such – falsely suggests that her conscience gives a woman permission to redefine what’s objectively right and wrong into "what’s right for her at the time" – her god changes the rules as the situation requires. How convenient.

The conscience is useful only if controlled by Almighty God. If anybody has a clear conscience while violating the Word of God, that person is sick and confused. The familiar saying, "Let your conscience be your guide," is okay if your conscience has surrendered to the Word of God. Our conscience is not something that everyone has inside and tells us right from wrong without error – as a compass tells us where the north is. The human conscience can be bent out of shape; it can become so insensitive that it doesn’t respond.

A lot of people today think there is no absolute authority when it comes to religion. Religion, they think, is determined by what they enjoy. That’s why a young woman who disagrees with her church and who knew that her church disagrees with her, could say the differences they had were not important. She could talk this way because her god approves of everything her conscience deems necessary.

The church is being asked to condone lifestyles that have long since been considered prohibited by the Bible, and by not speaking out a majority of churches are doing just that. In the church, absolutes are rapidly being discarded, and about the only question any asks is, "How do you feel about this?" Few people, however, ask what the Bible really says about such developments.

The god they have created substitutes truth and justice for a false peace that is sometimes referred to as "love." Anyone attempting to challenge their lifestyle, whether it be issues of promiscuity, abortion, or homosexuality, is accused by almost everyone, including many members of the clergy, as being judgmental and spreading "hate." Remember that word, "hate," as you’ll hear it often. Their god has a Heaven for everyone, but a Hell for none. Such a god is as true an idol as was ever created out of brass or clay.

Some time ago, I read an interesting article paralleling Jesus Christ to Santa Claus at relatively the same time. A few years later they learned that Santa Claus does not exist, and they start to question as to who this Jesus really is. Consequently, they invent their own form of Jesus – one that is self-serving – a form of spiritual tranquilizer for their every problem. They reason that if Jesus is God, He must be something like Santa Claus. Just a kind, loving, non-judgmental person who accepts them for what they are, and always gives them whatever they ask for regardless of whether they are naughty or nice.

Churches also started promoting this "safe" definition of Jesus, stating that anyone could expect a deed to the Kingdom without paying allegiance to the commandments of the King. Lifestyles and responsibilities become inconsequential. We’re not going to be held responsible for our actions, anyway, so where is the motivation for change?

And so we come to Easter with its message of salvation – of the cross and the resurrection. But when we start to tell that message, we hear, "Redemption means I need redeeming, doesn’t it? Well, I don’t!"

We start to tell the Good News of Easter, and we are quickly stopped. The response is something like this:

"What’s so important about Good Friday and Easter? You say, ‘Jesus died for sinners. He rose for our justification.’ What does that mean? I believe in an affirming god, who approves of me the way I am."

"For one thing, what is there for God to judge in me? Sin? How can I be a sinner when nothing is my fault? I am a victim, someone else is responsible for my problems, my negative actions, my crimes. I trace the difficulty to the abuse of parents, school, society – but never me."

"Don’t suggest to me that God will judge me. How can God do that? Didn’t God make me? If I am not right in some way, it’s not my fault."

"Easter, Savior – saved from what? Not sin. I want salvation from all that is being done to me. I want salvation from the consequences of my own choices; I don’t want to pay for the choices. I want affirmation from my god that I am doing just fine, and if there are any free gifts to be given – like peace, joy, and eternal life- I’d like those too. After all, I’m the best person I know, and I am confident my god agrees with me."

But we know that the Holy Spirit who is the seeking convincing One, knows that people do need redemption – just as each of us did. And in trusting the power of God’s Word and the convincing of God’s Spirit, we keep reaching out to a culture that will be absolute about there being no absolutes. A culture that will be absolute about anything or everything except the absolute need for Christ . . . and we keep announcing the Easter message.

Surveys show that less than 1% of people attending church know the Ten Commandments in any form. Our nation and even our churches do not know God’s absolutes of right and wrong, good and evil. This is why there are no clear-cut, established victories. We are a community that no longer recognizes or even knows God’s foundation of absolutes, in or out of the church.

Moral breakdowns never occur suddenly. It comes slowly, almost imperceptibly, like a slow leak in one of your tires. Some things that once were not allowed are now tolerated. We shrug and smile instead of facing the truth. Time passes. It isn’t long until we are rationalizing, and actually condoning, things that once made us blush. Now, decisions of compromise are more common, even though not long ago we wouldn’t have entertained such thoughts. We turn our heads or make excuses for not confronting evils within our society, passively referring to them as "social issues" or "personal private matters" rather than sin. To think, to discern, to reason, and to make decisions regarding right and wrong based on God’s Commandments is considered mean spirited, not Christ-like, and even hateful.

Sex and the County
Topic: ethics
A Team Blog Here

A FEDERAL DISTRICT JUDGE IN Maryland has jolted the local liberal establishment in Montgomery County by blocking a pilot program in sex education. The program was designed to sweep away the "myths"--the lingering moral inhibitions and retrograde theological teachings--that apparently feed reservations, still widely held, about homosexuality and same-sex marriage. Judge Alexander Williams Jr. put the kibosh on this plan, and the jolt has had a deeper resonance, not least because Williams happens to be a Clinton appointee. But the lasting tremors come from the fact that the decisive strands in his May 5 judgment are lines of argument that have been used most often by the left: The judge invoked the concern for an establishment of religion, and beyond that, he raised the charge, under the First Amendment, that people with discordant views were being blocked from the public square.

The action in this case came in one of the most liberal counties in Maryland, encompassing the suburbs of Washington, D.C. An advisory committee was put together in November 2002 to recommend a new program of "health education" dealing with "sexual variation." The program, when it was finally written, reflected the liberal orthodoxy of the education establishment. With the claim to teach in an authoritative way about health and sex, the program put forth a series of "myths" to be corrected with "facts." But the myths were not all mythical, nor the facts all factual. And the authors could not restrain themselves from pronouncing on the moral dimness of people holding opposing views, including the theological backwardness of those religions that continue to honor the tradition of Jewish and Christian teaching on these matters.

The committee "informed" students, then, that "approximately 1 in 10" people are gay, lesbian, or bisexual. (That figure has long been discredited; more sober estimates put the figure closer to 2 percent). By any realistic measure, the epidemic of HIV infection is attributable overwhelmingly to the sexual practices of gay men. But the report, offering instruction in health, glides past the issue of fatal diseases by noting merely that "other groups are catching up"--e.g., intravenous drug users and "heterosexual women (17-30 years old)."

The committee assured students that homosexuality is no more abnormal than left-handedness. In contrast, "homophobia rather than homosexuality should be cured." What critics offer as moral reservations are reduced then to a psychological disorder; they do not elicit reasons to deal with their arguments, but therapy. Morality itself, the committee told students, is a "subjective issue . . . based on beliefs and values," which differ among communities according to their histories and conventions.

As for biblical teaching, the committee noted that the Bible contains numerous passages condemning the practices of heterosexuals. Among the things condemned have been "adultery, incest, wearing clothing made from more than one kind of fiber, and eating shellfish, like shrimp and lobster." The implication, of course, is that the Jewish rules on kashrut in eating and clothing are just so many conventions that most thoughtful people would regard as quaint, without moral force. "Fortunately," said the committee, "many within organized religions are beginning to address the homophobia of the church," by which they mean, of course, the Catholic church. By way of contrast they laud, among others, the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, the Unitarian Universalist Association, and the Society of Friends (Quakers), for supporting "full civil rights for gay men and lesbians." Catholics, Evangelicals, Mormons, Orthodox Jews--these are apparently the retrograde religions, for in holding to their traditional teaching, even as they minister to gays and lesbians, they deny the civil rights of these Americans.

With no sense that there was anything the least problematic in this approach, the Montgomery County Board of Education voted to install this new regimen for eighth and tenth-graders in six schools, beginning in May 2005. But the move drew a lawsuit by parents and citizens, organized into the Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum, along with Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX).

Even a judge well seasoned in Democratic politics in Maryland could find something unsettling in this new curriculum; and indeed, it might have been his own liberal sensitivities that set off the alarms for Judge Williams. He professed himself to be "extremely troubled" by the willingness of the board "to venture--or perhaps more correctly bound--into the crossroads of controversy where religion, morality, and homosexuality converge." Williams himself had taken a master's degree in divinity and, without revealing anything of his own theological leanings, he remarked on the willingness of the curriculum to suggest that "the Baptist Church's position on homosexuality is theologically flawed."

As Williams noted, the curriculum "juxtaposes this portrait of an intolerant and Biblically misguided Baptist Church against other, preferred Churches, which are more friendly towards the homosexual lifestyle." In particular, the curriculum "plainly portrays Baptist churches as wrongly expressing the same intolerant attitude towards homosexuals today as they did towards African Americans during segregation." Williams observed that Baptists were presented here as "unenlightened" and "misguided" and wanting in the "tolerance" that marked the enlightened religions. In the name of secularism, or detachment from religion, the board was doing nothing less than establishing one segment of the religious in the country as less legitimate, less in accord with the liberality of the laws, and yes, less to be tolerated. So much for the Establishment Clause.

But then there was the other part of the First Amendment, dealing with speech and expression. Here the judge complained that the new curriculum "open[ed] up the classroom to the subject of . . . the moral rightness of the homosexual lifestyle"--and then presented "only one view on the subject--that homosexuality is a natural and morally correct lifestyle--to the exclusion of other perspectives." With these objections, Williams issued a temporary restraining order. No lasting harm, he thought, would be inflicted by withholding this pilot program until it could be more fully considered. But the faults in the program threatened an immediate violation of the Constitution and a lasting wrong.

Judge Williams professed finally that he did not understand why the provision of "health-related information" required the defendants to "offer up their opinion on such controversial topics as whether homosexuality is a sin, . . . and whether churches that condemn homosexuality are on theologically solid ground." In that way, he dropped some hints to the members of the school board as to how they might get themselves out of this fix. They might purge from the curriculum any attempts to pronounce on the legitimacy of the homosexual life or to render judgment on which religions are progressive or retrograde.

Judge Williams also gave some fine hints to Republicans in Congress if they would only be alert to them--and to their own legislative powers. After all, if the courts can articulate new rights under the Constitution, the legislative branch must be able to vindicate those same rights. And in vindicating them, the legislators may give them more proportion, more precision--and more bite. Do liberals want public schools purged entirely of religion? Then there should be no move by school boards, principals, or teachers to stamp some religions as favored and others as backward. No underhanded attempts to "establish" the religion of secularism. Do liberals want to break through conventions with "sex education"? Then education it should be: The life-shortening hazards of homosexual behavior should be conveyed, along with information about the other hazards of incautious sex; the record of conversions from the homosexual life should be put in texts along with the inconclusive arguments over the "gay gene."

If education is to be supported through federal aid, then the terms should be stringently set forth and instruction provided in an exacting, even-handed way. Faced with these requirements, the board in Montgomery County might prefer to revert to the curriculum as it used to be, and preserve a decorous silence: No endorsement of homosexual life, and, of course, no wounding words about gays and lesbians.

All of this could be done readily by a Republican Congress, taking up the liberal themes that Judge Williams brought down on the head of a liberal school board. Once again, conservatives may do their most telling work simply by asking liberals to live by their own slogans, and by the laws they hand down for others.



Hadley Arkes is the Ney Professor of American Institutions at Amherst College and a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.

Ashamed of Jesus?
Topic: One 2 One Witnessing


Ask the average Christian, "Are you ashamed of Jesus?" and he will more than likely adamantly answer, "Of course not. He's my Lord and Savior." This unashamed boldness to proclaim Christ is seen in the abundance of "Real men love Jesus" and other T-shirts that clearly identify the wearer as belonging to Jesus. Every Sunday millions faithfully attend churches that exalt the name of Jesus. There are more "fish" on cars than in the Atlantic Ocean. Gospel music resonates with love for Jesus, and even has the accolades of the secular music industry. Christ-exalting television and radio daily fill the airwaves. Add the fact that millions unabashedly jammed theaters to see a movie about Jesus of Nazareth, and you have to conclude that we as a nation are definitely not at all ashamed of Jesus Christ.

But look carefully at what Jesus told us about being ashamed of Him. He said, "Whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him the Son of Man will be ashamed when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels" (Mark 8:38). Notice that He said, "Whoever is ashamed of Me and My words." No, we don't have a problem with Jesus. It's His words we have a problem with.

Paul wrote to Timothy, "Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord . . . but share with me in the sufferings for the gospel . . ." (2 Timothy 1:8, emphasis added). It is the testimony of Jesus that causes "sufferings for the gospel." The apostle John was banished to the Isle of Patmos "for the testimony of Jesus Christ" (Revelation 1:9). Revelation also tells us that it is those who "have the testimony of Jesus Christ" who receive persecution in the last days (Revelation 12:17).

What then does Scripture mean by the "testimony of our Lord"? What did Jesus testify? He specifically tells us in John 7:7: "The world cannot hate you, but it hates Me because I testify of it that its works are evil" (emphasis added). He was hated because He testified against the sin of the world, and He preached about the reality of hell more than He did about heaven.

Jesus spoke of those who would be "ashamed" of Him and His words. "Ashamed" means to be "unwilling or restrained because of fear of shame, ridicule, or disapproval." Doesn't that pinpoint the problem? If "fear of shame, ridicule, or disapproval" makes us unwilling to testify of the words of Jesus to this lost and sinful world, then we are ashamed of Jesus and His words. That means, despite the fish, the music, the T-shirts, the trips to church and the movies, those who fit into the "ashamed" category may end up hearing Jesus denying that He even knew them (Matthew 7:21-23). He will be ashamed of them.

But there is hope. Scripture exhorts, "Study to show yourself approved to God, a workman that needs not to be ashamed . . . " (2 Timothy 2:15, emphasis added). You and I need not be ashamed. In other words, the problem has a solution. We are told to "study to show yourself approved to God." Study the subject of evangelism to learn how to share your faith. It's as simple as that. Proverbs 16:23 says, "The heart of the wise teaches his mouth, and adds learning to his lips."

A great preacher once said, "It is the great business of every Christian to save souls. People complain that they do not know how to take hold of this matter. Why, the reason is plain enough; they have never studied it. They have never taken the proper pains to qualify themselves for the work. If you do not make it a matter of study, how you may successfully act in building up the kingdom of Christ, you are acting a very wicked and absurd part as a Christian."

Have you ever looked at Revelation 21:8 and wondered why the "fearful" are aligned with the "unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers [fornicators], and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars" and will be cast into the lake of fire? All these are obvious sins. Is being "fearful" therefore a "sin"? The word used in Scripture for "fearful" is the Greek word deilos, which is also used in Matthew 8:26 where the disciples became fearful during a storm. Jesus said, "Why are you fearful, O you of little faith?" The "fearful" is a specific reference to those who lack faith in God, and it's used in a negative sense.

God has not given us the spirit of fear, but He has instead given us one of power, love, and a sound mind (see 2 Timothy 1:7). We have been given "power" to witness for Christ. We have "love" to cast out all fear, and we have "a sound mind" in Christ to faithfully testify to the truth of the gospel--that God is holy, that hell is real, and that the cross is the only way of escape.

So let's continue to wear our Christian T-shirts, chew our "Scripture gum," stick on our bumper stickers, fill the airwaves, pack our churches, and support Christian movies. But at the same time let's diligently study biblical evangelism, so that we can rid ourselves of the paralyzing fear of man, and faithfully reach out to those who in a heartbeat may be snatched into everlasting hell.

Preterist theory claims that Jesus returned in A. D. 70
Topic: Prophesy

The term preterist refers to the past. In grammar it is a past tense.

Preterist theory claims that Jesus returned in A. D. 70. Preterists think that Matthew 24, the Olivet Discourse, is already fulfilled and that most of Revelation refers to things in the past. The full preterist view says that the parousia of Jesus, including the resurrection of saints and the rapture, came in the first century. The partial preterist view usually says the Great Tribulation was in the first century, but the Parousia of Jesus(Second Coming of Messiah) is in the future.

I Thessalonians 4:16, 17 tells us that the rapture will occur at the parousia of Jesus, but some preterists confidently state that the idea of a rapture is not found in the Bible.

This book shows how full preterism is not consistent with what the Bible says. Alleged fulfillments do not fit Bible predictions and depend on excessive spiritualization of the words of scripture. The preterist tries to fit the round peg of scripture into the square hole of history, and so he deforms the truth of scripture.

The theory is properly called a heresy although it is understandable why some people accept it. Preterist arguments are used by Jewish antimissionary writers to try to prove that Jesus was a false prophet. They say that Jesus did not do what the Messiah is supposed to do. They are impatient people.

One reason people tend to believe some form of preterism is that Luke 21 clearly refers to A. D. 70 when Roman armies overthrew Jerusalem. Yet Luke's account, like Matthew 24, also extends to events that have not happened. The "times of the Gentiles" have not yet been completed for Jerusalem. Jesus has not yet come in a cloud with power and great glory.

One reason A. D 70 was not the time of the Great Tribulation is that Jesus said that "immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened ... and then shall appear the sign of the son of man in heaven ... and they shall see the son of man coming in the clouds ...." This suggests that the parousia of Jesus was to come immediately after the tribulation. How can one say it is still future? If the rapture is still future, the Great Tribulation cannot be past.

Preterists claim that Matthew 24 is now completely fulfilled. They spiritualize to make history agree with the prophecy. This is an error. If only part of a prophecy is evidently fulfilled, do not spiritualize the rest of it to fit it in the past. A prophecy may have some parts already fulfilled, but the rest of it lies in the future. Listen to what the Spirit advises: "The vision is yet for an appointed time, but at the end it shall speak, and not lie; though it tarry, wait for it; because it will surely come, it will not tarry." Hab. 2:3 God says, "Wait for it."

If Matthew 24 is fulfilled, then we must now be in the Milennium. We can see that is not so. But the preterist solves that problem by saying we must not take literally such predictions but we must spiritualize them.

The tendency to spiritualize loses precious truth. For example, a man may claim the story of Jesus walking on water is not to be taken literally but intended to tell us of the high esteem toward Jesus felt by His followers. A man may claim the story of Jesus raised from the dead is intended to tell us of the persistence of His moral teaching. That is what spiritualising can do for us. It is a weakness in amillennial and preterist doctrine. These examples may seem extreme, but the point is valid.

Normal speech usually contains some nonliteral terms. This happens in the Bible. But when must terms be taken as nonliteral? Someone wrote, "In order to be considered symbolic, the language in question must possess (a) some degree of absurdity when taken literally and (b) some degree of clarity when taken symbolically." That may not solve the problem. My employer pointed out that a virgin birth among humans is absurd. How many human babies do you know of who were conceived without sperm?

Since God is Author of Scripture, we must rely on His Holy Spirit to discern what He intends. If a student of the Bible is inclined to take a verse non-literally, he should examine his reasons for so choosing. It may be an unwarranted assumption, an unbiblical prejudice, or pure unbelief.

If a person has decided that Calvinism is correct, he will spiritualize Ezekiel's description of a future temple. If a person has accepted dispensationalism, he will disregard scriptures that logically require a posttribulation rapture. If one seeks truth, one must put aside his biases and listen carefully to the Scripture.

Preterism is blind toward Israel. James Russell wrote that Jesus' "mission as King of Israel is fulfilled; the covenant nation no longer exists." This sounds like Roman Catholic doctrine. The theologians of the Reformation never succeeded in completely escaping Catholic errors.

Scripture says, "For the children of Israel shall abide many days without a king, and without a prince, and without a sacrifice, and without an image, and without an ephod, and without teraphim: Afterward shall the children of Israel return, and seek the LORD their God, and David their king; and shall fear the LORD and his goodness in the latter days." Hosea 3:4, 5 We lose truth here if we spiritualize.

Most preterists would take literally the warnings in Deuteronomy 29 and 30 that say God would scatter Israel from their land for disobedience, but the promises of regathering are taken as nonliteral. This is inconsistent.

From Hebrews 1:2 we surmise that we are in the last days. It has been so for two thousand years. Today most Jews do not even believe in God. In the most recent election, only twenty-five percent of American Jews voted for the candidate who claims to believe the Bible. Israel is not yet seeking the Lord their God.

Hank Hanegraff, the Bible Answer Man, likes to ridicule those who take Bible prophecy literally and accuses us of "wooden literalism." He denies that he is a partial preterist yet he says the Great Tribulation ocurred in the first century. That is preterist opinion. Since Matthew 24:21 says there can be only one such time, Hank's idea means it will not happen in the future. Jesus said He will return at the parousia, "immediately after the tribulation," and yet Hank says the Tribulation is past and the rapture is still future. I heard Hank recently admit that full preterism is heresy.

It is striking fact that many Old Testament prophecies were understood literally by New Testament writers. Isaiah said a virgin would bear a child, and N. T. writers take that literally. David wrote that the soul of Messiah would not be left in Sheol and Peter claimed that Jesus rose from the dead. Wooden literalism!

Harold Camping reads the name Jerusalem in Luke 21 and he says Jerusalem means the Church. So this verse means God is telling Christians to get out of the churches. Is this not heresy?

Dr. R. C. Sproul wrote a book on the subject and he accepts a partial preterist position. He lists scriptures that seem to support that position, but he does not know how to explain them.

Dr. Bob Finley of Christian Aid Mission that does a wonderful work, shares preterist ideas. He sees no Bible prediction of a future conversion of Israel as a nation.

Why does God permit heresy to appear among Christian leaders? It is that "they which are approved may be made manifest among you." I Cor. 11:19 It makes possible a just decision relating to personal faithfulness in the day of judgment.

Daniel wrote "some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them and to purge them and to make them white, even to the time of the end." 11:35

The main claims of preterists are examined and refuted in this book, point by point.

For example, preterists teach that the rapture happened in AD 70 and the Olivet Discourse was fulfilled at that time. But Jesus said, "And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh." But instead of redemption, that time brought destruction and death. This prophecy properly refers to the future.

The last chapter of Revelation contains Jesus' words, "I come quickly" three times, and in verse 6, "things which must shortly be done," and in verse 10,"the time is at hand." This is used by preterists to prove a first century return.

A difficulty with this is that we don't know God's definition of the terms shortly, at hand, and so forth. These terms are not precise in that they don't specify a number of minutes, months, or millennia. We also read "that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." 2 Peter 3:8 The One who inhabits eternity does not see time as we do.

God promised to send Elijah before the great and terrible day of the Lord. Did Elijah come before A. D. 70? This cannot have been fulfilled by John the Baptist because after John was killed, Jesus said Elijah's work lay yet ahead. Matthew 17:11

Revelation 5:10 says the saints will reign on the earth. That obviously isn't happening today. Jesus promised His apostles that they will sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes. Has that happened?

In Matthew 23:39 Jesus implied that when He returns, Jerusalem will have turned to the Lord. Did that happen in the first century? Has it happened yet?

Jesus said that when He comes, all the nations will be gathered and will be separated, some for His kingdom and some for eternal fire. Matthew 25:32, 41 Did that already happen?

If Jesus came in A. D. 70, why do early church creeds not know it? The Didache at the end of the first century expresses belief in a future, not past, coming of Jesus.

Jesus said in Matthew 24:21 that the Great Tribulation will be worse than any before or after. But the war in the 1940's killed six million Jews, many more than in the first century.

To be protected from errors like preterism, one must know the Bible well. Matthew 24 and parallel passages in Mark and Luke, called the Olivet Discourse, are the place to begin because the information there, coming directly from the Lord Jesus, maps out the future without excessive symbolism.

In my book, "The Rapture Examined," it is clearly proven that Matthew 24 refers to the rapture of the Church, the elect. When one places Matthew 24 in parallel with Luke 21, it becomes clear that the rapture of the Church must lie in the future, not in the past.

Sometimes a portion of Scripture has more than one application. See my book A Clearer View of the Rapture. So Luke 21 does refer to events of A. D. 70 when Jerusalem was destroyed, yet the prophecy extends into the future. Luke 21, unlike Matthew 24 and Mark 13, does not use the term "great tribulation" because the Holy Spirit intends us to understand that the destruction of Jerusalem is not the Great Tribulation. Luke was focusing on the first century ruin of Jerusalem. Matthew described events yet future.

Luke wrote, "And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled." Today in the twenty-first century, Jerusalem is STILL BEING TRODDEN DOWN BY THE GENTILES. Then Luke wrote: "then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory." The parousia of Jesus MUST come after the "times of the Gentiles" are fulfilled. That is yet future.

Even John Calvin knew that A. D. 70 was not the Great Tribulation. He wrote, "Certain interpreters wrongly take the tribulation of those days as the ruin of Jerusalem; in fact this is a universal gathering-up ... of all the evils of which Christ had already spoken."

Notice this: "Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee. For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city. Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle. And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south." This did not happen in A. D. 70. The Holy Spirit is not wrong here. This is yet future.

Preterists quote Jesus' words that "This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." The preterist thinks this removes all doubt. A careful student would ask if the word genea can be translated in other ways. The KJV translates it "nation" in Phil. 2:15. It is translated "age" in Phil. 3:5. It is true that the Greek word genea may be translated sometimes as generation. But Jesus did not speak in Greek. He spoke in Aramaic, and the word used there in Aramaic versions cannot be translated as generation. It means kind, race, or family.

Preterists seek support for their position with another verse. Matthew 10:23 "But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come." But look at the context. Jesus was sending out the Twelve on a preaching trip. He said the trip will not be long. Jesus will gather them together asgain before they finish because there are things to do before He goes to the cross. But this has nothing to do with His second coming.

Preterists seek support with this. Matthew 16:28 "Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." If the preterist interpretation is correct, then these disciples will die after they experience the rapture at the parousia of Jesus. Obviously this cannot happen. John is one who saw in vision on Patmos Jesus coming in His kingdom. Peter tells what he saw on the Mt. of Transfiguration. These do not prove the rapture is past.

Preterists support their view by insisting that Revelation was written before A. D. 70. They point out that John in his vision at 11:1 measured the temple. That must mean the temple was still standing. But in Ezekiel 40 a man was measuring the temple, and who will argue that Ezekiel's temple was standing at that time?

But even if the early date for writing Revelation were true, it doesn't change the fact that the book of Revelation does not fit the preterist model. Because the events of A. D. 70 do not fit the events described in the book of Revelation, the preterist must avoid a literal method of interpretation. He must spiritualize in order to force a fit.

If Jesus returned in A. D. 70. why did the Church not notice it? The Didache, written around the beginning of the second century, expected that the Great Tribulation and the appearance of the antichrist were still in the future.

Preterists say Jesus returned around A. D. 70. Malachi 3 said of His return, "And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the LORD an offering in righteousness. 4Then shall the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto the LORD, as in the days of old." Is it true that in A. D. 70 the offering of Judah and Jerusalem was pleasing to the Lord? Obviously it is not so.

The preterist claim is that Satan was bound at the cross. Rev. 12:2 says he cannot deceive the nations and we are now living in the Millennium. This contradicts Ephesians 6:12 which explains that we wrestle against spiritual wickedness in the heavenlies. It also contradicts the daily newspaper.

They say it was a "partial binding." But look at the text.
An angel SEIZED the dragon. He BOUND him. He THREW him into the pit. He SHUT it. He SEALED it over him. These five action verbs show that this was not a partial binding.

Since there are many verses that are clearly misapplied by preterists, I cannot include all of them here. If the reader would like to bring one or more of them to my attention, I would be happy to consider them.

There are books that try to present all views on a subject. There is a place for that approach. But I have chosen to concentrate on the original, the text of the Bible. One learns to recognise the counterfit by studying the genuine.

This book was published by Vantage Press, runs 50 pages, and is available for $7 from John E. Young, 6 Robert St., Rockaway, NJ 07866

There is also a one chapter discussion of the preterist error in my book, "Revelation: A Clearer View," available from WinePress Publishing.

What About Sickness?
Topic: False teaching/teachers

Are All Christians To Be Healed By God?



A common Word Faith teaching is that it is your own fault for being sick. They teach that it is because of your lack of faith and/or knowledge if you are sick or poor. They teach a christian should not be sick and that we can claim our healing by faith and God will always heal us. This cruel and unbiblical teaching does nothing but heap guilt upon those that are ill and infirmed.

Can you imagine the gall to tell a person to their face that the reason they are sick with cancer is because of their lack of faith? Can you imagine the cruelty in telling a person bound to a wheelchair that if they had enough "faith" they would "Rise and be healed?"

Are there any instances of believers in the Bible that asked God for a healing and were refused? Are there any instances of believers in the Bible that remained sick or died from a sickness?



The Apostle Paul:

The Apostle Paul had a thorn in the flesh that was particularly troublesome. He asked the Lord three times to take it away but God said, "no." Despite God's refusal to heal him, Paul rejoiced because of his infirmities:

"For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ's sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong," 2 Corinthians 12:8-10.

"Ye know how through infirmity of the flesh I preached the gospel unto you at the first. And my temptation which was in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected; but received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus," Galatians 4:13-14.

From this passage of Scritpure it is crystal clear that a sickness can lead us to a deeper love of God. It can lead to spiritual growth and our better serving and honoring Him. To say that God wants everybody healed contradicts the clear teachings of His Word.

Charles Spurgeon said this about his battle with gout: "I am certain that I never did grow in grace one-half so much anywhere as I have upon the bed of pain."

King David said this about his afflictions: "It was good for me to be afflicted so that I might learn your decrees...I know, O Lord, that your laws are righteous, and in faithfulness you have afflicted me," Psalm 119:71, 75. "The LORD hath chastened me sore: but he hath not given me over unto death," Psalm 118:18. "Before I was afflicted I went astray: but now have I kept thy word," Psalm 119:67.

In the 14th chapter of the Book of Acts the Christians are exhorted to continue in the faith despite their many tribulations:

"Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God," Acts 14:22.

Jesus Himself told us that we will have tribulation in this life:

"These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world," John 16:33.



The Great Prophet Elisha:

Elisha had a double portion of the annointing of Elijah. He raised people from the dead and God did many other miracles through him as well. Despite this double annointing Elisha himself died from sickness and was not healed by God. Here is the scripture: "Now Elisha was fallen sick of his sickness whereof he died," 2 Kings 13:14.



Timothy:

Timothy's spiritual father was the greatest of all the apostles, Paul. He spent alot of time learning from Paul's life and doctrine. Surely, if it is God's will for every sick christian to be healed Paul would have healed Timothy's stomach condition. Instead of a miraculous healing, Paul advised him to take that days solution for that particular ailment: "Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities," 1 Timothy 5:23.



Trophimus:

Again we have a friend and companion of the great Apostle Paul that he could not or would not heal. Do you honestly think that if Paul could have healed his friend that he would have refused to do so? At the very least Paul could have left an apron or handkerchief to heal his friend (Acs 19:11-12).

God himself refused to heal Paul of his thorn in the flesh. Here is the scripture where Paul speaks of his friends sickness: "Erastus abode at Corinth: but Trophimus have I left at Miletum sick," 2 Timothy 4:20.

Sin and sickness entered the world through Adam (Romans 5:12) and his disobedience to God. God warned Adam the day that he did eat of the tree you will die (spiritually and physically). "And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die," Genesis 2:16-17.

So please do not blame God for sickness and death, our disobedience through Adam brought death into the world. Our bodies are prone to decay and sickness through the natural aging process. It could be the result of a bad diet, lack of exercise or a variety of other reasons that happen over time to each and every one of us. Whatever the case God will give you the strength you need to see you through your valley.

Our faith is God is not dependant upon our circumstances. We are pilgrims and seek a kingdom that is not of this world. We seek a heavenly habitation, where there will be no more tears, death, or pain. God describes what heaven will be like, "And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away," Revelation 21:4.

If we experience sickness and death we must say with Job no matter how hard and difficult it may be at the time:

"And said, Naked came I out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I return thither: the LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD...Then said his wife unto him, Dost thou still retain thine integrity? Curse God, and die. But he said unto her, Thou speakest as one of the foolish women speaketh. What? Shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil (Calamity)? In all this did not Job sin with his lips...Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him: but I will maintain mine own ways before him," Job 1:21, 2:9-10, 13:15.

Meditate on this moving statement from Habakkuk in which he puts his joy in God despite any wickedness or trouble that may happen to him. His joy comes from knowing and serving God not from his circumstances:

"Although the fig tree shall not blossom, neither shall fruit be in the vines; the labour of the olive shall fail, and the fields shall yield no meat; the flock shall be cut off from the fold, and there shall be no herd in the stalls: Yet I will rejoice in the LORD, I will joy in the God of my salvation," Habakkuk 3:17-18.





ISAIAH 53:4–5—Does this passage indicate that physical healing during mortal life is guaranteed in the atonement, as Word-Faith teachers often argue?

MISINTERPRETATION:

Isaiah 53:4–5 states, “Surely our griefs He Himself bore, And our sorrows He carried; Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, Smitten of God, and afflicted. But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed” (nasb). Word-Faith teachers believe this passage means that physical healing during mortal life is guaranteed in the atonement. Hence, a true believer should never be sick. It is up to the believer to appropriate the guaranteed healing that has been made available in the atonement. If the believer has unbelief or sin, then this available healing is thereby prevented (Hagin, Word of Faith, August 1977, 9).

CORRECTING THE MISINTERPRETATION:

While ultimate physical healing is in the atonement (a healing we will enjoy in our resurrection bodies), healing of our bodies while in the mortal state (prior to our death and resurrection) is not guaranteed in the atonement.

Moreover, it is important to note that the Hebrew word for “healing” (napha) can refer not just to physical healing but to spiritual healing. The context of Isaiah 53:4 indicates that spiritual healing is in view. In verse 5 we are clearly told, “He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed” (v. 5, emphasis added). Because “transgressions” and “iniquities” set the context, spiritual healing from the misery of sin is in view.

Numerous verses in Scripture substantiate the view that physical healing in mortal life is not guaranteed in the atonement and that it is not always God’s will to heal. The apostle Paul couldn’t heal Timothy’s stomach problem (1 Tim. 5:23) nor could he heal Trophimus at Miletus (2 Tim. 4:20) or Epaphroditus (Phil. 2:25–27). Paul spoke of “a bodily illness” he had (Gal. 4:13–15). He also suffered a “thorn in the flesh” which God allowed him to retain (2 Cor. 12:7–9). God certainly allowed Job to go through a time of physical suffering (Job 1–2). In none of these cases is it stated that the sickness was caused by sin or unbelief. Nor did Paul or any of the others act as if they thought their healing was guaranteed in the atonement. They accepted their situations and trusted in God’s grace for sustenance. It is noteworthy that on two occasions Jesus said that sickness could be for the glory of God (John 9:3; 11:4).

Other Scripture reveals that our physical bodies are continuously running down and suffering various ailments. Our present bodies are said to be perishable and weak (1 Cor. 15:42–44). Paul said “our outer man is decaying” (2 Cor. 4:16). Death and disease will be a part of the human condition until that time when we receive resurrection bodies that are immune to such frailties (1 Cor. 15:51–55).

(Geisler, N. L., & Rhodes, R. 1997. When Cultists Ask: A popular handbook on cultic misinterpretations . Baker Books: Grand Rapids, Mich.)



PHILIPPIANS 2:25—If Paul had the gift of healing, why couldn’t he heal his coworker, Epaphroditus?

MISINTERPRETATION:

Word-Faith teachers say that full physical healing in this life is guaranteed in the atonement and that it is God’s will for every single person to be healed of all physical afflictions (cf. Hagin, Word of Faith, August 1977, 9). In the Book of Acts, Paul healed the sick and raised the dead (20:9–10). On one occasion he even healed everyone in an entire city (28:9). But here, he apparently could not even heal a needed coworker.

CORRECTING THE MISINTERPRETATION:

Some believe that possessing the gift of healing did not guarantee that one could always heal everyone. On one occasion the disciples could not heal a demon-possessed young man (Matt. 17:16). They insist that the gift of healing did not make a person 100-percent successful, any more than the gift of teaching makes one infallible.

Others insist that the gift of healing was always successful, noting that Jesus healed the young man (Matt. 17:14–20) and rebuked the disciples for not exercising their God-given power to do it (vv. 17–18). They claim that the gift of healing was 100-percent successful, in the same way that no one with the gift of prophecy ever uttered a false prophecy. For a false prophecy was a proof that someone did not possess the true gift of prophecy (cf. Deut. 18:22).

The reason Epaphroditus was not healed is not stated in the text. But neither does it say Paul attempted to heal him and failed. Since no exercise of the gift of healing is recorded past about a.d. 60 (Acts 28:8), it may be that the special apostolic gift of healing (cf. 2 Cor. 12:12; Heb. 2:4) had passed away by this time (c. a.d. 61). It is not listed in the much briefer list of gifts in Ephesians 4, as it was earlier in 1 Corinthians 12:28.

From any perspective the Word-Faith claim that full physical healing (in this life) is guaranteed in the atonement is incorrect. We will be ultimately healed when we receive our resurrection bodies—and that is guaranteed in the atonement.

(Geisler, N. L., & Rhodes, R. 1997. When cultists ask : A popular handbook on cultic misinterpretations . Baker Books: Grand Rapids, Mich.)



Dr. J Vernon McGee adds:

That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses [Matthew 8:17].

This quotation is from Isaiah 53:4. Probably this verse is used by so-called faith healers more than ano other verse. They claim that physical healing is in the atonement, and they use this verse to support their position.

Let’s turn the pages back to Isaiah and look at this verse, because I do not believe it gives sanction to the modern healing movement at all. “Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed,” Isaiah 53:4-5.

Of what are we healed? This passage from Isaiah clearly states that we are healed of our transgressions and iniquities. You say to me, “Are you sure about that?” I know this is what these verses are talking about because Peter says, “Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed,” 1 Peter 2:24. Healed of what? “Sins.” Peter is making it very clear that he is talking about sin.

“All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all,” Isaiah 53:6. It was your inquity and mine which was laid upon Him. Obviously, Isaiah is referring to the fact that Christ would grapple with the great fundamental problem of sin. To contend that healing is in the Atonement is beside the point. So is a glorified body in the Atonement, but I don’t have mine yet. Do you? Also, a new earth with the curse removed is in the Atonement of Christ, but it is obvious that we don’t have these yet. In this day when sin and Satan still hold sway, there is no release from sickness as an imperative of the Atonement. Why did Paul urge Timothy to take a little wine for his stomach? Why didn’t he urge him to get his healing in the Atonement? Why didn’t James urge the saints to claim the Atonement when he asked them to call in the elders to pray (James 5:13-15)? Why didn’t Paul claim healing in the Atonement when he mentioned the fact that there was given to him a thorn in the flesh?

“And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure. For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me,” 2 Corinthians 12:7-9.

There are other examples recorded concerning this subject. Paul, in Philippians, had a regular hospital on his hands. Epaphroditus had been ill (Philippians 2:25-27), and Paul did not use the Atonement to claim healing.

My friend, we need to face the fact that it is not always God’s will to heal. However, sometimes it is God’s will to heal. Instead of going to a tent or an auditorium where healing services are advertised, why don’t you go directly to the Great Physician, the Lord Jesus Christ?

Find out if the healing is in His will for you. I believe in divine healing but not in so-called divine healers. Instead of going to an individual down here on earth who claims to have power, I prefer to take my case to the Great Physician and say with the leper, “If thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.” Then whether we are healed or not healed, He gets the glory. And we want Him to have that.

Apparently, Paul knew nothing of this modern cultism of seeking healing in the Atonement. God can and does heal today, but not through so-called faith healers."

(Dr. J Vernon McGee, Commentary on Matthew 8:17)



“Insomuch that they brought forth the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and couches, that at the least the shadow of Peter passing by might overshadow some of them. There came also a multitude out of the cities round about unto Jerusalem, bringing sick folks, and them which were vexed with unclean spirits: and they were healed every one,” Acts 5:15-16.

May I compare this to modern faith healing? Modern faith healers never heal all the people who come to them. Have you ever noticed that? The apostles had sign gifts, friend. No one in the church since then has had those gifts. People were healed, every one of them. They emptied the hospitals. This was the power of the early church.

We must remember that at that time there was no written New Testament. The church is built on Jesus Christ—He is the Cornerstone—and the apostles were witnesses to Christ. The sign gifts were given to them to demonstrate the fact that they spoke with God’s authority. Today we have a written New Testament as our authority.

(Dr. J Vernon McGee, Commentary on Acts 5:15-16)



“And great multitudes followed him; and he healed them there,” Matthew 19:2.

I want to put two words together and emphasize what has been emphasized before several times. One word is multitudes and the other word is healed. It was not just a few people that were healed; multitudes were healed. I am more and more impressed by this as time goes on. If you are going to be a faith healer; brother, you ought to go to the hospitals and empty them. That is what our Lord did when he passed by; if anyone wanted to be healed, they could be healed. Multitudes were healed!

(Dr. J Vernon McGee, Commentary on Matthew 19:2)


Dr John MacArthur: Does God Stll Heal?

"And a final note; according to Scripture, those who possess those abilities to heal could use their gift at will. That's not true of the contemporary healers because they don't have that gift. They play games with people's minds--the power of suggestion. They prey upon people, making them believe things that aren't really true and they use deception. Look at the Apostle Paul, in Philippians 2, he mentions that his good friend Epaphroditus was very sick. Now, Paul had previously displayed the ability to heal, but he doesn't heal Epaphroditus. It's fair to say that, maybe, that gift was passing out of operation, but it is sure fair to say that the gift of healing was never (listen carefully) intended to keep Christians happy and healthy! In fact, you look through the New Testament and find out how many healings occurred to believers--absolutely rare--Peter's wife mother, Dorcas. [But there were] masses of unbelievers; masses of people who may or may not have believed anything about Christ or the Apostles. But it surely wasn't given to keep everybody in the Church healthy; and yet today it is being portrayed as something that is supposed to be done for believers to keep them healthy, to show them that in the atonement is their healing: totally foreign to Scripture.

Second Timothy 4:20, Paul mentioned he that he left Trophimus sick at Miletus; now, why leave a good friend sick? Why did he leave his Christian friend sick? Why didn't he heal him? Well, maybe he didn't have that ability as the time passed on out of the Apostolic era, but for sure he recognized that healing was not something you run around doing for your Christian friends. It was never intended as a permanent way to keep the Church healthy; yet today Charismatics teach that God wants every Christian well all the time. If that is true, then why did He let them get sick to start with? It seems a basic question. God didn't give you an HMO in your salvation, a sort of supernatural HMO that works automatically. God heals when He wants and when He wishes, but that's up to Him.

Has God promised to heal everybody who has faith? He doesn't promise that He will always heal, but I think the Christian can look to heaven for healing. Now, I want to turn the table a little bit as I close in the next couple of minutes. I think that we can go to the Lord for healing. I think that we can pray to Him for deliverance from disease, and I do believe that there are times when God touches us. Sometimes He heals through medicine, sometimes He heals through surgery, sometimes He heals through natural process working in the body. The body is an amazing self-healing thing. And sometimes He may just heal supernaturally because it is His will, and we can look to heaven for that. We can cry out to God in our sickness and ask for His healing. I would suggest that there are three reasons why we could expect that God might heal:



1. He might heal because of His person.



You remember his Old Testament name, that wonderful name: it's really Yahweh Rapecca (sp.)--The Lord that Heals. God heals because of His person. "I the Lord am your healer," He told the Israelites. And the very fact that when Jesus came into the world He could have done a lot of different miracles. I mean if He wanted to convince people about His Messiahship He could have just flown around, and He could have said, "See, I can do this, and who else can do this?" Or He could have jumped a building at a single bound, or flown faster than a speeding bullet, or He could have put on a "Superman Show" and everybody would have been in awe of that. But why did he choose to heal people? Because He was demonstrating His compassion, and a compassionate God has a heart to heal. And I think that we have experienced that at times in our life; God raises up someone from sickness.



2. God heals because of His promise.



He says, "Whatever we ask in His name, believing and according to His will, He will do it." And there must be times when He will do that. There is certainly a description in James 5 of a broken, shattered, devastated person, who goes in for prayer. The elders gather around that individual and while the pain of that situation is spiritual it has tremendous physical ramifications, and through prayer that person is restored. "The effectual fervent prayer avails much." If in God's will He has designed that [then] He will do that because of His promise.



3. God heals because that is His pattern.



It is true that in the atonement God bore our diseases, Matthew 8 says it. Matthew 8 says, "He Himself took our infirmities, and carried away our diseases." Now, we have already discussed 1 Peter 2:24 and I won't do it again; it doesn't mean that healing for every sickness is in the atonement for now! But healing for every sickness is in the atonement for someday--isn't it? And someday He will remove all of those diseases. Ultimately, eternally we will be delivered from sickness and infirmity. And it may just be that He would chose because of that pattern of providing a salvation that ultimately delivers us from bodily infirmity when we get a glorified body, that maybe He will give us a taste of "Glory Divine."

God may heal. That poses the final question, "Should a Christian go to the doctor?" And we come all the way back to Hobart Freeman again. We would never advocate such idiocy. You say, "Well, does the Bible say anything about this?" Sure, read Isaiah 38. Not now. I knew that you would do that; your heads just go right down--that's good. Pavlov's dogs! Just instant response. That's not derogatory, by the way, that's trained response. In Isaiah 38, King Hezekiah was deathly ill, and you remember the king was crying, and he was crying tears, and then he was crying to the Lord, and God answered his request. And he says this, "Let them take a cake of figs and apply it to the boil, that he may recover." Isn't that good? That's what we used to call a poultice. Right? Now, God is saying, "Do the medical thing." In Matthew 9:12, Jesus confirmed the same idea when He said this, "It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick." And so the Lord has given us that instruction also.

Now, in closing, I simply say, I want to reiterate that I believe that God can heal. God can do anything He wants to do. I do not believe the gift of healing is for today because it was to authenticate the Biblical message and messenger. That is in place; it needs no more authentication then the authentication given to it by the Spirit of God to the heart of the reader. But I do believe that God may in His grace chose to heal, and we have every right to pray for that, and at the same time seek the finest medical help that we can because to Lord desires us to do that as well.

Let's pray. Father, thank you for letting us cover all of this tonight. Our minds are full of these considerations. Lord, we would not at all be ungracious to the many people who are victims of these kinds of things. And even Lord, there may be some in these movements who are well meaning and well intentioned, who for some reason or other believe that these things really are happening.

Lord, we would pray for those who have a true and a pure intention, and who are genuinely believing that this is true, that You would show them the truth of Your word and help them to see the light. And then Lord, for those who are just playing with the hearts and minds and the wallets of people, that you would cause them to be struck with the truth of what they are doing. To be literally stopped in their tracks by the fear of God, as they would misrepresent You.

Lord, we pray for Your Church to be discerning, clear minded. And then Lord, even as we close tonight, we would remember to pray for those in our congregation who have physical illness, disability, physical pain and suffering, some with even the diagnosis of a fatal disease, that Lord, You would be gracious to them. We know that You are going to heal them someday, and if it would suit Your glorious purpose and bring honor to the name of Jesus Christ, we would ask that you heal them now; that You might receive glory for that. But if not, that You might give them the grace to acknowledge Your perfect will. And help us to know Lord that it is not through these kinds of miraculous things that people are going to believe the truth. It is through hearing about Jesus Christ and reading the Scripture and having it presented to them, not only on the page but through the work of the Holy Spirit in their hearts, that they shall come to the truth. And so may we faithfully proclaim this word, which can authenticate itself by the Holy Spirit to the heart of one who hears.

Thank You again Father for the clear word that You do care and that there is a day of healing coming for us all. We rejoice in anticipation of it, in Christ's name. Amen."


Chip's Comment:

My daddy-law has cancer and you can not deny the systems, how could he. He is in a lot of pain with the treatments he has to take. Word of Faith teachers would have you to believe that your to blame but the truth is, it is these earthly bodies we are in. One day we all will die and the fact that people do die (even Word of Faith teacher Ken Hagin died )should prove that their teaching is false. Can God heal? Absolutely! He will do it and if we are Christians when we get to Heaven we will have to worry about sickness ever again! Amen.


Attention: NEVER take my word for anything! Get your Bible out, check out my answer against God's Word.

Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect. 1 Peter 3:15

These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so. Acts 17:11

Domestic Partners Must be Treated Like Married Couples
Topic: Gay Agenda Watch
Center for Law and Policy

Press Release

Domestic Partners Must Be Treated Liked Married Couples Says Court



Contact: Kathryn Hooks, 662-844-5036
American Family Association
P.O. Drawer 2440
Tupelo, MS 38803
1-662-680-3886

For Immediate Release: 8/2/2005

Sacramento, CA. - In a unanimous decision yesterday, the California Supreme Court ruled that California businesses must treat same-sex domestic partners the same as married couples. The ruling came in a case where a golf club had denied a family membership to a lesbian couple.

Last year California expanded its domestic partner law to grant the equivalent of spousal status to domestic partners. The ruling is certain to fuel the debate over two initiatives being circulated in California; one initiative would repeal the domestic partner law, and the other would amend the state constitution to limit and preserve marriage as existing only between one man and one woman.

Brian Fahling, senior trial attorney for the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy, said ?the court?s decision is certainly troubling, and it serves as a reminder of how important it is to bind down the courts with a constitutional amendment protecting marriage and its essence.?

In the opinion, Justice Carlos Moreno wrote, "A business that extends benefits to spouses it denies to registered domestic partners engages in impermissible marital status discrimination.''

?It is essential that our federal constitution be amended to protect marriage,? said Fahling, ?but until that has happened, states like California that do not have a constitutional amendment protecting marriage need to act quickly, otherwise marriage will be trivialized out of existence.?

Fahling said that ?those in the radical homosexual movement know they cannot succeed in the democratic process; that is why they use the courts to impose their will on the nation.?


Chip's Comment: We must make sure that Conservative Judges be elected in local/state and federal Courts.

Recognize Who You're Talking To
Topic: Devotions


Wednesday, August 03, 2005 Daily Devotional

Spansih Version Available

Isaiah 2:10 Enter into the rock, and hide in the dust, From the terror of the Lord And the glory of His majesty. (NKJV)

When you approach God in prayer, the first order of business is to contemplate Who you are about to speak to. The world is much too casual today about God describing Him as “the man upstairs” or “the big guy”, whether from embarrassment or ignorance.

God is portrayed in Scripture as awesome (Duet 10.17), terrifying (Psa 90.7) and the common response to His presence is to fall flat on your face (Rev 7.11), unable to stand in the presence of His holiness. God is so holy (Lev 11.45), so majestic (Job 37.4), so powerful (Psa 66.1-4) that we should feel like crawling under a rock and hiding from Him rather than face His unfathomable purity.

If we are saved by faith in Jesus Christ, do we have to be scared of God? No, not in the sense that we cannot know what to expect from Him. In other words, we don't have to be "gun-shy" in God's presence as if He were irrational and unpredictable.

We can know what to expect from God
as long as we are in line with His Word
and have a proper reverence for Him.

Should we fear God? Most certainly. We have almost lost the concept of healthy respect and fear in our culture. If this is foreign to you, let's say you're standing in the middle of the road and a city bus is racing 90 mph straight at you. It would benefit you to have a healthy fear of its power and the potential consequences of ignoring it. Do you need to be afraid of it? Only if you ignore it or treat it casually. If you respect its power and presence, then you need merely to step out of the way of its path.

You don’t have to be afraid, but you do
need a healthy, fearful respect.

Today's culture of relevant truth and arrogant individualism would leave you talking about your rights and the nerve of anyone to judge you for standing in the way of the oncoming bus even as it ran you over. In the same way, many will still be asserting their right to ignore God while passing through the gates of eternal condemnation.

Anytime you express the Biblical idea of "fearing God", you will be faced with accusations of being harsh, judgmental, negative, old fashioned and Puritan. This torrent of criticism causes many to back down from the plain Scriptural truth of God’s nature. Is God loving and patient? Absolutely. Is God merciful, compassionate and kind? Beyond measure. But that is only part of His character.

God will not share His rightful place with anyone – Isa 48.11
God is jealous and will not tolerate competition – Deut 4.24
God is not intimidated by man – Job 38.2
God is judgmental of sin and wickedness – Mal 3.5
God’s anger burns against the sinfulness of men – Num 32.14
God’s wrath will be poured out on those who hinder the Gospel of Christ – 1Thess 2.14
God will send you to an eternity of punishment in hell if you choose to ignore Him - John 3.18-19; Psa 9.17; Matt 18.6-9
When we enter into God’s presence through prayer, it is not a casual thing. It should be a routine and consistent part of our life, but never flippant or casual.

Proverbs 1:7 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, But fools despise wisdom and instruction. (NKJV)

A proper fear of God results in our obedience and humility. A healthy fear of God will help us avoid sin and disobedience. It helps us to truly understand the gulf that separates us from God, a gulf that is only traversed through the shed blood of Jesus Christ. The fear of God is the acknowledgement that He has provided only one way of reconciliation, only one path to His presence and that is the narrow way of atonement through the Lamb of God who died that we might have life (John 20.31).

As you enter into prayer today, take some time first to contemplate Who you are about to speak to. Meditate on the attributes of God: love, mercy, kindness, compassion and forgiven. But also on His jealousy, judgment, intolerance of sin and demands for righteousness.

Majestic and Fearsome Lord, help us today to see You fully. Give us understanding of the infinite chasm that separates Your Holiness from our best attempts to be good. Instill in us a proper fear and reverence of You. May it cause us to understand Your love and mercy even more. In Jesus Name, Amen.

Contemplation: Do you think it is an old fashioned notion to “fear God”? Do you treat God like your buddy, or a kindly old Grandfatherly type? Or, do you merely approach Him without much thought at all? Would you characterize your prayer time as casually presenting your wish list for today to the "man upstairs"?

Application: God forbid that we ignore His whole nature. God is love, but also Judge. God is patient but full of wrath. God is merciful but also jealous. Resist today’s trend towards a “feel-good”, shallow concept of God. He encompasses all things holy, both loving and fearsome. We can only feel good about Him, when our understanding lines up with His truth.

What is the most obvious Bible truth you have learned today?

What change in your life needs to be made concerning this truth?

What specific thing will you do today to begin that change?

Are You Ready to go a deeper level with God?
Topic: 30 Day Devotional
Day One-

"He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him." John 14:21

In the Epistle of Paul to Philemon, he says how he continually prays for Philemon, saying that he has heard of the "love and faith" which he has, both toward the Lord and toward his bretheren. The Paul reveals a little understood principle that can change your life and deepen your walk with God in a way you never expected.

Listen to how the Amplified Bible translaes Philemon 1:6:

(And I pray) that the participation in and sharing of your faith may produce and promote full recognition and appreciation and understanding and precise knowledge of every good (thing) that is ours in (our identification with) Christ Jesus (and unto His glory)."

The implications are clear. If you want a more full understanding of every good thing we have in Christ... you can get it by sharing your faith. The Scriptures say that it actually produces that knowledge in you. Those who don't reach out for the lost aren't experiencing God on this deeper level. They've yet to discover the incredible fulfillment awaiting those who respond to Christ's command. Matthew Henry said, "I would think it a greater happiness to gain one soul to Christ than mountains of silver and gold to myself." Charles Spurgeon said, "To be a soul winner is the happiest thing in this World."

Consider for a moment the words of Jesus to his disciples shortly after He spoke to the woman at the well "But He said to them, 'I have food to eat of which you do not know'" (John 4:32). What was this sustaining food of which Jesus spoke? He told them in His next sentence, "Jesus said to them, 'My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me, and to finish His work'" (John 4:34). He had just done the will of the Father by sharing the words of everlasting life with the woman at the well. Doing that was to Jesus as if He had just eaten life-sustaining food. You can know that same fulfilling joy as you obey the command of the Lord Jesus, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature" (Mark 16:15). As you do so, watch the Philemon 1:6 priciple begin to take effect in you life. Your understanding and appreciation of every good thing we have in the Lord will deepen. If that's what you want, you've begun the right journey.

Tommorrow's devotional will take longer that any of the others in this journal. That's because tommorrow we're going to explore the "how" of sharing your faith. How can we biblically, simply and effectively, share the life-giving words of the Gospel? Don't skip tommorrow's devotion because it takes a little longer to do. It is absolutely essential and foundational to the rest of your journey.

If you can't wait for me to type the next devotion then go to 30 day devotional for a deeper level with God.

You will also find more free resources on this.