Westminster Truth

2007-07-14T16:17:00.000-07:00

Confronting Amyraldianism!

First of all, I'd like to talk a little bit about what Amyraldians believe first off. We shall take a look and see for ourselves, "This view maintains that Christ died for all men alike, making all men savable, with actual salvation conditioned on individual faith. Then God, seeing that no one would respond because of their depravity, chose (or elected) some to receive the grace to believe. Some see this as inconsistent, for how is it possible to contend that God gave His Son to die for all men alike and equally, and at the same time to declare that when He gave His Son to die, He already fully intended that His death should not avail for all men equally, but only for some which He would select." The question I wanna ask the amyraldians if God gave his son to die for all men then why are all men not saved? It absolutely makes no sense that Christ would die for those who would burn in hell. That would presuppose, that Christ atonement was done in vain since his atonement would do them no avail, even though Christ had died for them the whole notion is absurd. Amyraldianism is as absurd and is wholly inconsistent with the theology of reformed Christianity it is wholly unorthodox in it's understanding of the atonement, or justification.

PS I'm going to show you how they purposely, misinterpret what Calvin said in his writings you guys will be amazed.

2007-07-14T14:35:00.000-07:00

Hello my friends, it has been nearly a year since I wrote in my blog. And for that I do apologize I'm going to endeavour two write more often and hopefully I will deal with some issues that are burning in my mind and on my heart. One of the issues, some called it 4 point calvinism but is better yet known as; Amyraldism I will give you some links so that you can review for yourself and come to your own conclusion, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amyraldism or http://www.banneroftruth.org/pages/articles/article_detail.php?416 . I hope you come to the conclusion through time that Amyraldism is not the truth of Calvin's teachings at all, and I hope to prove this in the near future. And prove that it is nothing but Arminianism rehashed. And those that are involved, are very confused about what Calvin taught.

2007-02-03T08:59:00.000-08:00

Obsession: What The War on Terror Is Really About

2006-07-31T14:26:00.000-07:00


If Loose Change blew your mind, just watch this. This movie explores what all Radical Islamic Extremists, who only make up 10%-15% of the Muslim population, are really trying to do, and how. You have to see this movie to get a real prespective of the problems we have in the world.

2006-06-21T15:04:00.000-07:00

Gospel Preaching Commanded
A.W Pink

There are those who misrepresent the doctrine of election in this way: Here I am sitting down at my table tonight with my family to tea. It is a cold winter’s night, and outside on the street are some hungry starving tramps and children, and they come and knock at my door and they say, “We are so hungry, Sir, Oh, we are so hungry and cold, and we are starving: won’t you give us something to eat?” “Give you something to eat? No, you do not belong here, get off with you.” Now people say that is what election means, that God has spread the gospel feast and some poor sinners conscious of their deep need come to the Lord and say, “Have mercy upon me,” and the Lord says, “No, you are not among My elect.” Now, my friends, that is not the teaching of this Book, nor anything like that. That is absolutely a false representation of God’s truth. I do not believe anything like that, my friends, and I would not insult you by asking you to come here night by night and listen to anything like that.

1. Compel Them To Come In

Now, then, here is the truth. God has spread the feast, but the fact is that nobody is hungry, and nobody wants to come to the feast, and everybody makes an excuse to keep away from the feast, and when they are bidden to come they say, “No, we do not want to,” or “We are not ready yet.” Now God knew that from the beginning, and if God had done nothing more than spread the feast, every seat at His table would have been vacant for all eternity! I have no hesitation in saying, there is not one man or woman in this church tonight but who made excuses time after time before you first came to Christ. You are just like the rest. You made excuses, so did I, and if God had done nothing more than just spread the feast, every chair would have been vacant; therefore, what do you read in that parable in Luke 14? Because the feast was not furnished with guests, God sent forth His “servants.” Oh, put your glasses on. It does not say “servants,” it says God sent forth His “servant” and told Him to “compel” them to come in that His feast might be furnished with guests. And there is not a man or a woman in this church tonight or in any other church that would ever sit down at the marriage-supper of the Lamb unless you had been compelled to come in, and compelled by God.

Well, you say, what do you mean by ‘compelled?’ I mean this, that God had to overcome the resistance of your WILL, God had to overcome the reluctance of your heart, God had to overcome your loving of pleasure more than loving of God, your love of the things of this world more than Christ. I mean that God had to put forth His power and draw you; and if any of you know anything of the Greek or have a Strong’s Concordance, look up that Greek verb for “draw” in John 6:44, “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him.” It means “use violence.” It means to drag by force. There is not a Greek scholar on earth that can challenge that statement—I mean, and back it up with proof. It is the same Greek word that is used in John 21 when they drew the net to the land full of fishes. They had to pull with all their might, for it was full of fishes. They had to DRAG it. Yes, my friend, and that is how you were brought to Christ. You may not have been conscious of it, you may not have known inside yourself what was taking place, but every last one of us was a rebel against God, fighting against Christ, resisting His Holy Spirit, and God had to put forth almighty power and overcome that resistance and bring us to our knees; and if any of you object to that strong language, then I am here to tell you, you do not believe in the teaching of this Book on the absolute depravity of man.

Man is lost, and man is dead in trespasses and sin by nature. Listen, it is not simply that man is sick and needs a little medicine; it is not simply that man is ignorant and needs a little teaching; it is not simply that man is weak and needs a little hope: man is dead, dead in trespasses and sin, and only almighty power from heaven can ever resurrect him and bring him from death unto life. That is the gospel I believe in, and I do not preach the gospel because I believe the sinner has power in himself to respond to it. Well, you say, then what is the use of preaching the gospel if men are dead? What is the use of preaching it? I will tell you. Listen! Here was a man with a withered hand, paralyzed, and Christ says, “Stretch forth thine hand.” It was the one thing that he could not do! Christ told him to do a thing that was impossible in himself. Well then, you say, why did Christ tell him to stretch forth his hand? Because divine power went with the very word that commanded him to do it! divine power enabled him to. The man could not do it of himself. If you think that he could, you are ready for the lunatic asylum, I do not care who you are. Any man or woman here who thinks that that man was able to stretch forth his paralyzed arm by an effort of his own will is ready for the lunatic asylum! How can paralysis move?

Well, I will give you something stronger than that. You need something strong today, you need something more than skim-milk; you need strong meat if ever you are going to be built up and grow and become strong in the Lord and the power of His might. Here is a man who is dead and buried, and his body has already begun to corrupt so that it stank. There he was in the grave, and Someone came to that graveside and said, “Lazarus, come forth.” And if that someone had been anyone less than God Himself, manifest in flesh, he might have stood there till now calling, “Come forth.” What on earth was the use of telling a dead man to come forth? None at all, unless the One Who spoke that word had the power to make that word good.

Now then my friends, I preach the gospel to sinners, not because I believe the sinner has any power at all in himself to respond to it: I do not believe that any sinner has any capacity in himself whatever. But Christ said, “The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life,” and by God’s grace I go forth preaching this Word because it is a word of power, a word of spirit, a word of life. The power is not in the sinner, it is in the Word when God the Holy Spirit is pleased to use it. And, my friends, I say it in all reverence; if God told me in this Book to go out and preach to the trees, I would go! Yes sir. God once told one of His servants to go and preach to bones and he went. I wonder if you would have gone! Yes, that has a local application as well as a future interpretation prophetically.

2. Preach The Gospel To Every Creature

Now the question arises again, why are we to preach the gospel to every creature, if God has only elected a certain number to be saved? The reason is, because God commands us to do so. Well, but, you say, it does not seem reasonable to me. That has nothing to do with it; your business is to obey God and not to argue with Him. God commands us to preach the gospel to every creature, and it means what it says—every creature—and it is a solemn thing. Every Christian in this room tonight has yet to answer to Christ why he has not done everything in his power to send that gospel to every creature! Yes, I believe in missions— probably stronger than most of you do, and if I preached to you on missions, perhaps I would hit you harder than you have been hit yet. The great majority of God’s people who profess to believe in missions are just playing at them. I make so bold as to say of our evangelical denominations today that we are just playing at missions and that is all. Why my friends, there is almost half of the human race—think of it!—in this 20th century—travel so easy and cheap, Bibles printed in almost every language under heaven, —and as we sit here tonight, there is almost half of the human race that never yet heard of Christ, and we have to answer to Christ for that yet! You have and I have. Oh, yes, I believe in man’s responsibility. I do not believe in man’s “freedom,” but I do in man’s responsibility, and I believe in the Christian’s responsibility in a double way; and everyone of us here tonight has yet to face Christ and look into those eyes as a flame of fire, and He is going to say to us, I entrusted to you My gospel. It was committed as a “trust” to you (See I Thess. 2:4). It is required in stewards that a man be found faithful.

Oh, my friends, we are playing at things. We have not begun to take religion seriously, any of us. We profess to believe in the coming of Christ, and we profess to believe that the one reason why Christ has not come back yet is because His Church, His Body, is not yet complete. We believe that when His Body is complete He will come back. And my friends, His “body” never, never, will be complete until the last of His elect people will be called out, and His elect people are called out under the preaching of the gospel by the power of the Holy Spirit; and if you are really anxious for Christ to come back soon, then you had better be more wide awake to your responsibility in connection with taking or sending the gospel to the heathen!

Christ’s word, and it is Christ’s Word to us, is “Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel.” He does not say “Send ye.” He says “Go ye,” and you have to answer to Christ yet because you have not gone! Well, you say, do you mean by that that every one of us here tonight ought to go out to the mission field? I have not said that. I am not any man’s judge. Many of you here tonight have a good reason which will satisfy Christ why you have not gone. He gave you work to do here. He put you in a position here. He has given you responsibilities to discharge here, but every Christian who is free to go, and does not go, has to answer to Christ for it yet.

“Go ye into all the world.” Well then, you say, Where am I to go? Oh, that is very easy. You say, easy? Yes, I mean it: it is very easy. There is nothing easier in the world than to know where you ought to begin missionary work. You have it in the first chapter of Acts and the eighth verse: “Ye shall receive power after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto Me both in Jerusalem [that is the city in which they were] and in all Judea [that is the State in which their city was], and in Samaria [that is the adjoining State], and unto the uttermost part of the earth.” If you want to begin missionary work, you have to begin it in your home-town; and my friends, if you are not interested in the salvation of the Chinese in Sydney, then you are not really interested in the salvation of the Chinese in China, and you are only fooling yourselves if you think you are! Oh, I am calling a spade a spade tonight. If you are anxious about the souls of the Chinese in China, then you will be equally anxious about the souls of the Chinese here in Sydney; and I wonder how many in this building tonight have ever made any serious effort to reach the Chinese in Sydney with the gospel! I wonder? I wonder how many here tonight have been round to the Bible House in Sydney and have said to the Manager there, “Do you have any New Testaments in the Chinese language, or do you have any Gospels of John in the Chinese language? How much are they per hundred? or per dozen?” And I wonder how many of you have bought a thousand or a hundred, and then have gone round to the houses in the Chinese quarter and have said, “My friend, this is a little gift that will do your soul good if you will read it.”

Ah, my friends, we are playing at missions, it is just a farce, that is all! “Go ye” is the first command. Go where? Those around me first. Go what with? The Gospel! Well, you say, “Why should I go?” Because God has commanded you to! Well, you say, “What is the use of doing it if He has just elected certain ones?” Because that gospel is the means that God uses to call out His own elect, that is why! You do not know, and I do not know, and nobody here on earth knows, who are God’s elect and who are not. They are scattered over the world, and therefore we are to preach the gospel to every creature, that it may reach the ones that God has marked out among those creatures.

2006-06-14T18:27:00.000-07:00

Dispensationalism

[R]ecently the…extreme of multiplying covenants or dispensations has given rise to Dispensationalism. The Scofield Bible enumerates seven dispensations. It defines dispensation in the subhead to Genesis 1:28: “A dispensation is a period of time during which man is tested in respect to obedience to some specific revelation of the will of God.” In itself this definition is not particularly bad. Old Testament history describes several occasions when God tested man by some specific revelation. This was true not only of Noah, Abraham, and Moses, but also of many others. There are several cases in Judges, such as the testing of Gideon by reducing his army as described in the seventh chapter. Then there is the case of Saul and Agag (1 Samuel 15:3, 8, 14); Saul failed the test, Gideon passed the test. Then too there is the case of David’s numbering the people (2 Samuel 24:1, 10, 12). These, however, are not what Scofield means by dispensations, even though they are cases of God’s testing men by a special revelation. Scofield enumerates seven dispensations. Even this, though somewhat fanciful, is nothing to cause great alarm. The description of the first dispensation in the footnote to Genesis 1:28 is quite good. The really serious error, the actually fatal error, of dispensationalism is the construing of these dispensations so as to provide, since the fall, two (or more) separate and distinct plans of salvation. Lewis Sperry Chafer wrote, “There are two widely different, standardized, divine provisions, whereby man, who is utterly fallen may come into the favor of God” (Bibliotheca Sacra, Vol. 93, 1936, 410). On 1 John 3:7, “he that doeth righteousness is righteous,” the Scofield Bible’s note is in part, “The righteous man under law became righteous by doing righteously; under grace he does righteously because he has been made righteous.” Thus instead of a covenant of grace—extending from Adam, through Abraham, into Galatians, and on to the culmination—dispensationalism has two methods of salvation.
For example, Scofield’s footnote to Romans 7:56 speaks of “two methods of divine dealing, one through the law, the other through the Holy Spirit.” Now, Paul before his conversion may have had a wrong conception of the Mosaic law, but this does not mean that in reality the Holy Spirit was inoperative in the Old Testament. Similarly the footnote to John 1:17, “Grace … is constantly set in contrast to law, under which God demands righteousness from man.” But God still demands righteousness from man, though this righteousness is a gift from God. The righteousness by which an Old Testament saint was saved was also a divine gift. Therefore Scofield is quite wrong in the following footnote, which says, “As a dispensation grace begins with the death and resurrection of Christ. The point of testing is no longer legal obedience as the condition of salvation.” But the dispensation of grace did not begin with the crucifixion. God began dispensing grace to Adam. Furthermore, legal obedience was not the condition of salvation in the Mosaic “dispensation.” The condition was faith in a future sacrifice…..
Though it may not be spelled out so explicitly, the [Scofield] footnote to Matthew 5:2 in effect says that sinners during the millennium will be saved, not by the blood, merits, and grace of Christ, but by their obedience to the beatitudes, which are “pure law.” But this contradicts the universal proposition of Acts 4:12: “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” The Scripture, quite the reverse of Dispensationalism, asserts that there is just one way of salvation. True enough, the divine plan in all its completeness, as Paul said in Ephesians 3:5, “was not made known unto the sons of men in other ages as it is now revealed to his apostles and prophets by the Spirit”; but Paul’s fuller doctrinal explanation is precisely the same covenant that was less fully revealed in Genesis 3:15— “I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.”
Though this is the fatal error that removes dispensationalism from the sphere of evangelical Christianity, there are also some minor infelicities, which, though overshadowed, need not be overlooked….
It is on the Abrahamic covenant that Dispensationalism most obviously founders. A supposed antithesis between the Abrahamic covenant and the Mosaic dispensation, plus the antithesis and mutual incompatibility between both and he New Testament covenant of grace, is a contradiction of both Testaments. Even in the so-called Mosaic dispensation, Deuteronomy 1:8 and 4:31 briefly and partially, yet unmistakably, appeal to the covenant with Abraham. In an earlier passage, Moses prays for forgiveness on the basis of the promise to Abraham (Exodus 32:13). More clearly, Leviticus 26:42 specifies the Abrahamic covenant as the basis for God’s dealing with the Israelites after the Exodus. The unity of the covenant and its application during the time of David is expressed in Psalm 105:8-10: “He hath remembered his covenant for ever, the word which he commanded to a thousand generations. Which covenant he made with Abraham, and his oath unto Isaac; and confirmed the same unto Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant.” Note that it is an everlasting covenant, one that did not cease at the Exodus.
But of course the clearest and most important passage is Galatians 3:6-9,17: “Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. And the scripture, for seeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. So that they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham . . .. 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.”
The first few verses of this quotation show that the elect in New Testament times are saved on the basis of the Abrahamic covenant and are counted as children of the patriarch. Further, these verses state that God’s declaration to Abraham was in essence the very gospel that Paul preached. Not only so, but at the time of Abraham God explained to him that the covenant included the Gentiles. In the next place, Paul expressly affirms that the Mosaic “dispensation” could not disannul the Abrahamic covenant that four hundred and thirty years earlier had been confirmed in Christ. In Christ, no less. The Mosaic ritual, Paul explains, was a temporary arrangement necessary because of the sins of the Israelites. It was to cease when the Messiah should come. Even during the Mosaic administration, the Abrahamic covenant was not disannulled, set aside, invalidated, or made of no effect. The Abrahamic covenant was operative all through the alleged dispensation of law. No one was ever saved by keeping the law. No one ever kept the law. Salvation, now, then, and always has been by grace through faith. Hence from the fall of Adam there has been one, just one continuing Covenant of Grace.
This unmasks another subsidiary though important instance in Scofield’s footnote to Matthew 16:18: “Israel was a true church, but not in any sense the New Testament church—the only point of similarity being that both were ‘called out’ [ek-klesia], and by the same God. All else is contrast.” But not all else is contrast. Israel and the New Testament Gentiles were not only as a matter of fact called out by the same God, but they were called out to the same salvation from sin. This salvation in both cases depended on faith in the same promises. To say otherwise, as Scofield does, is to imply that either David or Cornelius failed to arrive in Heaven.

Gordon H. Clark

2006-06-06T13:23:00.000-07:00

When Mamma Wears Combat Boots

An article by Mrs. M.L. Chancey

he terrified face of Army Spc. Shoshana Johnson broadcast over Iraqi television and the news that at least two other women soldiers had been captured in Gulf II immediately re-ignited the debate over the role of women in the military. Pundits pulled out the familiar statistics about the numbers of women enlisted, the studies done on integrated boot camps, and the pros and cons of women in "at risk" positions during a war. Editorials from writers on both sides of the issue quickly filled the papers. Feminist writers insisted that Pfc. Jessica Lynch's action in the face of capture "rebuts the notion that women cannot bear the burdens of combat." i On the conservative side, stalwarts like Phyllis Schlafly, Mona Charen, and Jane Chastain responded that sending women into harm's way is "a humiliation for America and a step backward for civilization." ii But in the midst of a debate over a question with crucial cultural implications, the Church at large has remained strangely silent. I believe this is because we have already sold our birthright and no longer have the foundations upon which to build an argument against placing women in combat.

Women have served in support positions during wartime throughout history. They have provided food, clothing, and nursing care for soldiers, have worked hard to conserve resources on the home front, and have inspired men to defend what is more precious and vital for our survival than anything else: the next generation. It is only in the last half century that the numbers of women serving directly in combat support units has increased. Yes, there are the stories in history of the few women who have disguised themselves as men in order to serve in actual combat. The feminists love to trot these out as proof that a woman can fight like a man and take a bullet like a man, but instead of serving as evidence that women should be placed on the front lines, they reveal a fatal flaw in the thinking of those who believe that women and men should be treated the same in all situations. When it comes down to it, the question is not and never has been "Can some women fight like men and go into battle?" Obviously, there are historical examples of women who have stood the test of the battlefield. But exceptions do not make the rules. The question we ought to be asking is not "Can women stand in the line of fire?" but "Should we place women in harm's way?"

When the conservative commentators bring out all the studies and statistics that show women lack the upper body strength that is a given for 95% of the male population and that women tend to panic under fire, they have already given away the premise. All it takes to destroy their argument is to have some scientist come forward and demonstrate that placing women on steroids and training them just like men will toughen them for battle and give us buff lines of female fighting machines. Again, the question isn't "Can we" but "Should we?" And, ultimately, who is to say whether we should or not? If the Christian's answer is based upon anything (statistics, studies, stories from history) other than the infallible Word of God, that answer will not withstand the relentless pressure of the opposition.

All of our actions and decisions must be led and determined by Scripture, which is "given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness..." (II Tim. 3:16). Principles for living in every possible area of life are contained in God's perfect Word. We cannot rely upon our own hearts, which are "deceitful above all things and desperately wicked" (Jer. 17:9). Our hearts can lead us into great error. When we have questions about an issue, we should look first to the Scriptures, seeking God's principles so that we can apply them carefully to the situations and issues we face in our society.

Sadly, most Christians seem to feel that God is silent about "modern-day" issues like women in combat. We feel that if God's Word doesn't spell something out word-for-word (e.g. "Thou shalt not put women in combat"), then He doesn't have anything to say about it. It is truly tragic if we need such a direct proclamation to prove to us that women are to be protected, cherished, and defended, and that men are to do the work of guarding them. From cover to cover, the Bible is packed with stories, laws, commands, and examples of men laying down their lives to protect the innocent and the weak. Christ is, of course, our primary example, and He calls men to follow Him by sacrificing in order to cherish, nourish, and protect the ones under their charge. The Groom of Scripture does not hide behind the skirts of His bride. In fact, men in Scripture who hide behind women are roundly condemned for their cowardice (see the account of Deborah the prophetess in Judges 4).

The Bible is clear. God never asks women to carry the sword in time of war. In fact, He specifically teaches against this practice in Deuteronomy 22:5. This is the familiar passage where God declares that women mustn't dress like men and vice versa. But what the Hebrew actually refers to is the wearing of armor for battle; not just everyday clothing. Clarke's Commentary on Deuteronomy says, "[T]he [Hebrew] word geber is here used, which properly signifies a strong man or man of war." iii Women are not called to put on battle dress or to train for battle. God calls it an "abomination," the strongest term that could be used. It is a sign of judgment upon a nation when women go into battle situations (see Judges 4 and Isaiah 3:12).

Whom does God call to enter the army? Deuteronomy 24:5 says, "When a man has taken a new wife, he shall not go out to war or be charged with any business; he shall be free at home one year, and bring happiness to his wife whom he has taken." Men go off to war; not women. Numbers 26:2 says, "Take a census of all the congregation of the children of Israel from twenty years old and above, by their fathers' houses, all who are able to go to war in Israel." The following chapters show that when a census was taken, only men were counted -- heads of households ("by their fathers' houses"). So only men over the age of twenty were considered "able to go to war." There are no examples in Scripture of women fighting in the army of Israel. Yes, we have examples of women who put evil men to death (like Jael putting a tent peg through Sisera's temple), but they didn't do this as soldiers. Jael lured Sisera into her tent for a bowl of milk and waited until he fell asleep to seize the opportunity to destroy the enemy of Israel.

But perhaps the most compelling evidence that women do not belong in the military is found in God's directions for warfare contained in Deuteronomy 20. God clearly shows that women and children are not to be harmed:

And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee. (Deut. 20:13-14 KJV)

In normal cases of warfare, God commands that women and children be protected from abuse (even, as in this case, the women and children of the enemy). If the women of the enemy were to be protected from harm, we could not infer that Israelite women were free to head to the front lines and take an arrow. It is clear from Scripture that women are not to be treated as combatants.

It should come as no surprise that the increased role of women in the military has corresponded with the steady advance of feminism in American society. And the radical feminist movement of the last half century has only built upon the foundations prepared by those in the century prior who wanted to change the role of women from that which God ordained to one which fit their own agenda. But we cannot conveniently point fingers here and blame the feminists for the problems we face today. We must first point to ourselves, for it is the Church that has failed to hold up God's blueprints for women, the family, and society and has handed over so much ground to the enemy of our souls.

We lost the argument against women in the military when we turned a blind eye to the numbers of women flooding the workforce during WWI, in the 1920s, and the 1940s. We rationalized that this was all for a good end -- that women serving on factory lines to produce munitions, jeeps, airplanes, and other wartime material would "help the boys over there" and "keep America first." And certainly God can bring good out of all kinds of bad decisions -- but that does not justify the decisions. Following hard upon the heels of the idea that women could serve in male-dominated professions was the novel idea that someone else could raise the children while mamma was serving her country. Scientifically designed day care centers would feed, train, and entertain the little ones. The WPA (Works Progress Administration) of the Depression era provided funding for childcare centers so mamma could drop the kiddies off somewhere and go to her workplace without worry. ivThis only increased during WWII, and because of the situation (a nation at war), no one seemed compelled to question the decision to shuffle childcare into the hands of the government or non-family members. No matter how well intentioned, this decision has produced terrible repercussions for children, for women, and for the family as a whole.

What is it we Americans are fighting for anyway? Just warfare isn't centered upon misguided nationalism ("the American way all the way") or upon defending our materialistic gains. If we are sending men and women off to fight for McDonald's and apple pie, we have missed the point. A just war is fought to defend something more personal -- the innocent, the weak, and most importantly, the young who will inherit the nation we leave behind. A society that does not protect its young (and the ones who bear the young) is a society that has forgotten why it exists. We are not placed here to live lives of middle class complacency, content with our Big Macs and our technological gadgets. We are here to pass along the wisdom of generations to the ones who will grow up behind us and take over for us when we are gone. We are here to disciple our children and to infuse them with a long-term vision for their children's children.

Allan Carlson writes, "The strong and normal human instinct is to protect infants, toddlers, and their mothers. Indeed, their well-being and security form the central purposes of every healthy nation. From the smallest tribe to the greatest empire, the human rule has been that all others must sacrifice, and even die, to protect the mothers of the young, for they are a people's future." vYet as mothers march off to war, we Christians seem able only to look the other way or to bluster and stammer incoherently. We have no answer, because we have already given away the question.

When Christians send their women to work and put their children in daycare, they have announced to the world that mamma is replaceable. If just anyone can train up a child, why bother having mamma at home? Indeed, if daycare centers can feed and clothe our children and teach them what they need to know, who needs families at all? We may as well all go off in our own separate directions and make money so we can buy all the stuff that the "American dream" is made of. And if mothers do not have a special, God-given role in the lives of their children, then why should it matter if mamma wears combat boots or takes a bullet?

Unfortunately, we have slowly bought into the lie that mothers can be replaced by just about anyone else. The feminists have worked hard to convince us that being a mother is just another menial job -- one that anyone with half a brain can do well -- and that only a paying career can validate a woman in the eyes of the world. Brian Robertson writes, "Because it is uncompensated, the work of the mother and homemaker is too often taken for granted in the economic theory, and a materialistic analysis that sees man in purely economic terms is bound to undervalue domestic work." vi Because we do not treasure the work of the mother and cherish the role of women in the family, the world sees no reason to do so, either. Now, I am not downplaying the vital role of fathers in the health of the family. Fathers and mothers are equally important in the life of a child. However, God has given the unique role of childbearing and nurturing to women, and He has given the work of providing for and defending the family to men. This is not a popular position in our "enlightened" times, but it is the truth. We cannot get away from the fact that women were designed to bear children. Men will never be able to have babies. God has given that precious privilege to women only. And because of this unique role, women must be protected and defended at all costs if a society is to survive.

If mothers go into the front lines in the same proportion that fathers do, we will be in serious trouble. Like it or not, the truth is that mamma isn't replaceable. Daycare cannot do the job of the mother. We have the studies that show us the detrimental effects of daycare upon children, but we really do not need them. Deep down, we know that mothers are the best providers of care for their own offspring (with only extremely rare exceptions). No hired caretaker can love a child as much as his own mother does. No one else has that particular child's best interests at heart -- no matter how well intentioned that person might be. Mother love isn't a commodity that can be bought or traded on the open market. And it is absolutely not dispensable.

Again, Brian Robertson says, "When not directed toward providing security and stability for family life, particularly the rearing of children in the home, work outside the home loses much of its traditional meaning." vii Change the wording just a bit, and this statement applies just as much to women serving in the military: "When not directed toward providing security and stability for family life, particularly the rearing of children in the home, going to war loses much of its traditional meaning." Throughout history, the average man (no matter what "cause" his leaders may have embraced) has fought to protect his home, his wife, and his children. A woman's role in war was that of the supporter on the home front -- the one who prayed, wrote letters, made clothing, sent medicine, and nursed the wounded back to health. When we send women into harm's way, we only complete the circle of violence to the family that we started when we declared that mothers didn't need to stay at home or nurture their own children.

The voices from the other side will naturally respond, "You can't tell women what to do. Some women want to go into the armed services and be in combat. Who are you to dictate that all women stay at home and nurture children?" Here is where we must not fall back upon man-made arguments, statistics, and studies. We do not have the right to dictate what roles women will fill in this world, but the God Who created us does. Why can't we put women at risk? The answer comes directly from Scripture:

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones. "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church. Nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself... (Eph. 5:25-33a NKJV)

In the Christian faith, the Groom dies for the Bride. The strong lays down his life for the weak. Women and children are of vast importance in God's economy, because children nurtured and diligently trained are the future of the Church, the community, and the world. For a culture to put mamma on the front lines and say, "Take it like a man," that culture first has to have lost its focus upon the importance of the ones who will inherit what we leave behind.

The traditional blessing given during an Anglican marriage ceremony in the Church of England comes from Genesis 24:60: "Our sister, may you become the mother of thousands of ten thousands; and may your descendants possess the gates of those who hate them" (NKJV). Our vision must be a long-term one that thinks of children's children and plans for their care, their education, and their safety. From beginning to end, God's Word is filled with beautiful images of mothers caring for their children: nursing them (Ps. 22:9), comforting them (Ps. 131:2), instructing them in wisdom (Pr. 6:20 & 31:1; Song of Solomon 8:2; II Tim. 1:5), and praying for them (I Sam. 1:27). Nowhere in Scripture do we find men commended for sending women into battle and thus doing violence to the mothers of the next generation. To do so is cultural and societal suicide. Why don't women belong in combat? Because God says women deserve a special status among humankind: the status of the cherished, the nourished, the protected, and the honored. Does this make men expendable? Hardly. War is a terrible thing and exacts a horrific price. We should avoid it at all costs. But when the enemy comes to kill our children and hurt their mothers, God appoints men to stand up and shield those entrusted to their care. Without such protection, the next generation cannot survive. And without dedicated mothers, grandmothers, aunts, and sisters, the young cannot thrive and grow strong.

Theodore Roosevelt said it best when he addressed the nation in 1905 on the importance of motherhood:

No piled-up wealth, no splendor of material growth, no brilliance of artistic development, will permanently avail any people unless its home life is healthy, unless the average man possesses honesty, courage, common sense, and decency, unless he works hard and is willing at need to fight hard; and unless the average woman is a good wife, a good mother, able and willing to perform the first and greatest duty of womanhood, able and willing to bear, and to bring up as they should be brought up, healthy children, sound in body, mind, and character, and numerous enough so that the race shall increase and not decrease. There are certain old truths which will be true as long as this world endures, and which no amount of progress can alter. One of these is the truth that the primary duty of the husband is to be the home-maker, the breadwinner for his wife and children, and that the primary duty of the woman is to be the helpmate, the housewife, and mother... No wrong-doing is so abhorrent as wrong-doing by a man toward the wife and the children who should arouse every tender feeling in his nature. Selfishness toward them, lack of tenderness toward them, lack of consideration for them, above all, brutality in any form toward them, should arouse the heartiest scorn and indignation in every upright soul... Into the woman's keeping is committed the destiny of the generations to come after us... The woman's task is not easy--no task worth doing is easy--but in doing it, and when she has done it, there shall come to her the highest and holiest joy known to mankind; and having done it, she shall have the reward prophesied in Scripture; for her husband and her children, yes, and all people who realize that her work lies at the foundation of all national happiness and greatness, shall viii rise up and call her blessed.

If we want to call a halt to women's participation in the military, we must first acknowledge our own faults in denying God's Word. Instead of blaming the feminists or faulting the legislators we've elected, we need to take a searching look into our own hearts and ask if we have bought into the lie that women are no different from men. We need to take a hard look at the way the Church instructs its daughters. Are we preparing a generation of capable, intelligent, and wise mothers and sisters, or are we lining our girls up to march in lockstep with a culture that does not cherish women or their unique role? The issue is not women in the military -- the issue is our lack of faithfulness to God's decrees for men, women, and children. Until we return to the "old paths" of Scripture in the way we honor our husbands, bring up our children, and protect our families, we do not have a leg to stand upon when it comes to rebutting the feminists on this issue. We've already sold our birthright for a mess of pottage. And the deepest grief of all is that, unlike Esau, we do not have the sense to weep over what we have lost.

i "Women Fit for Front Lines? Ask Jessica Lynch" by Mary Schulken
ii "The Unwitting Victims of Feminist Ideology" by Phyllis Schlafly
iii http://www.godrules.net/library/clarke/clarkedeu22.htm
iv For just a few examples of this, see the historical data on federal funding for daycare centers at A brief History of Federal Financing for Child Care In the United States. There is also an example of a day care started with WPA funds at lib.virginia.edu
v Carlson, Allan. "Mothers at War: The American Way?"
vi Robertson, Brian. Forced Labor: What's Wrong with Balancing Work and Family. Dallas: Spence Publishing Company, 2002, p. 91.
vii Ibid, p. 87.
viii Roosevelt, Theodore. "On American Motherhood," a speech given in Washington on March 13, 1905, before the National Congress of Mothers.

2006-06-02T13:36:00.000-07:00

Carnal Christian?

There is in our day a teaching that has become very popular, and this teaching nullifies in the minds of many the clear and unmistakable truth of 1 John 3 which is nothing but a systematic statement of what we find from Genesis to Revelation, namely, that a man saved by the grace of God will be a holy man. A man saved from the penalty of his sin will be a man who seeks day by day to walk from the defilement of sin. And yet there is a teaching in our day, which has negated the clear implications of 1 John 3. I have found again and again when I would set forth the Biblical doctrine of holiness, biblical holiness, not an experience, but a walk in conformity to the will and law of God. Whenever I would set forth the Biblical doctrine, and lay out the truth that no man has a right to claim he is a Christian unless he is a holy man, immediately people would bring up this red flag and wave it in front of me. Do you know what that red flag has written on it? What about a Carnal Christian? I've had that question asked me I don't know how many times. The moment the Spirit of God began to stab the consciences of men who were professing to know Jesus Christ but who were not pressing on in the path of holiness, immediately they sought to hide behind this popular doctrine, that for sake of a better term and one which will identify it in our minds, I will call the Carnal Christian Doctrine. I would rather use a stronger word, and call it the Carnal Christian Heresy for this is indeed what it is.
Now it is going to be my purpose to seek to examine this doctrine in the light of the word of God because I feel in my own heart that you and I have been brought up in a generation when this doctrine has been popularized and made very wide spread in our fundamental circles. Now this is my purpose, I feel that for the sake of your souls I must do this. And I am asking you as we come to the word of God to come with a teachable childlike spirit, come like the Bereans who will search the scriptures to see whether these things are so. And so shall we search these things in an attitude of prayer and ask God to help us as we embark upon this study which is not pleasant but which is absolutely necessary for our soul's well being.
Let us pray: Our Father, we thank thee that thy word is truth. We praise thee that by comparing scripture with scripture, and that having an open heart and a teachable spirit, the Holy Spirit will lead us into truth. We pray as we seek to deal with this problem and this confusion that has wrought havoc in the church that the Holy Spirit himself shall be present to be our teacher and to cause us to see thy truth, and by thy grace to bow beneath it's implication. We ask in Jesus' name; Amen.
Now in order to think our way through this I want to, first of all, answer the question what is this doctrine called the Carnal Christian Doctrine? Some of you may say what am I talking about? You may not know it under that title but when I describe it you will recognize it. Then I want us to consider an exposure of this doctrine in the light of the scriptures. Now as we do this I don't want us to do it academically, I don't want us to do this from the standpoint of just gaining more information. I want you to do it from this standpoint. Supposed it was suddenly announced over all the radios in your area that a number of people in your area were afflicted with a dread disease, which was of such a nature that it would kill people within a month after contracting it. But the symptoms were so indiscernible to the average person that many people could be walking about, afflicted with this dread disease and not know it. What would your attitude be if suddenly they announced that in every school and every public building there will be lectures by competent medical men to explain the subtle symptoms of this disease that you might discover whether you may have it and take the proper remedy? If you went to such a meeting, how would you listen? You would not listen merely academically to learn something more about this disease. You would listen as a matter of life and death. You would listen with this attitude, I must see if these symptoms, which the doctor talks about are in any way, in any shape or form, present in my life. I must not give the disease the benefit of the doubt! I must at any cost discover if I'm inflicted with this disease and seek the proper remedy. You would not listen to this as a mere lecture on medical terms. You would listen to it as a matter of life and death. This is the kind of hearing that I beg of you in this study.
As we seek to expose this doctrine I'm not doing it from an academic standpoint. I do not want you to read this from the mere standpoint of gaining information. I am convinced that there are men and women, boys and girls, whose souls are in jeopardy because they have believed this heresy. And unless you allow the Holy Ghost to open your eyes some of you may perish and wake up in hell that thought you were going to wake up in heaven when you die. I am convinced of this! It is the only reason I am seeking by the enablement of God to deal with this subject. It is not enough that I pray for you and to cry out to God that the Holy Spirit would open the eyes of any who may be deceived about their soul salvation, it is my responsibility to preach the truth that will aid you to see your sin and to expose the error that would keep you from seeing your sin. Our Lord Jesus who preached positive truth and said I am the way also said beware of the doctrine of the Scribes and the Pharisees. He called it leaven. He warned people and he named it and he sought to keep his disciples from falling prey to it. This is the motive in which I speak to you, and I trust it will be kept before you constantly.
Now what is the doctrine? The doctrine is basically this, that there are three kinds of people in the world, and they generally take it from 1 Corinthians 2 and 3 where you find these three words occurring, natural man, carnal man and spiritual man. This is usually the way in which the doctrine is presented. People who have never received Jesus Christ are natural men. They are sinners by nature and by practice, they are dead in their sins and have no knowledge of God. This is true; this is the Bible doctrine of human depravity.
Then they say the next class of people is the carnal man. This is the man or woman who has received Jesus as his savior, he believes that Christ died on the cross for him, and believing that he has been made a child of God, but, (listen carefully), you never know he is a child of God because although he is saved by the blood of Jesus he lives just like natural man. He lives addicted to the flesh, to the world and to self. You cannot discern the fruit of the Spirit or any pursuit of holiness, but you must not ever call him an unregenerate unsaved man because he has accepted Jesus. He is a man who is saved from hell but who is not yet saved from himself. And so this is the carnal man, the man who is saved but still living like he was not saved.
Then there is the third man. He is the spiritual man, the one who has not only been saved, but the one who has received Christ as his Lord after he has received him as his Savior. He has learned how to walk in the Spirit and you can see real evidence of Jesus Christ living out his life in him. This is the spiritual man.
But when you ask them, well how about this carnal man? Suppose he should die? Oh well, he will be saved so as by fire, he will lose some rewards, but because he has accepted Jesus he'll go to heaven. And then when they try to deal with this carnal man, here is the way that they deal with it, they say listen, it is not right for you to be carnal. Don't you know you will be ashamed when Jesus comes? You ought to be a spiritual man. And they present holiness as a very nice thing, and as necessary if he is going to be a good testimony, and if he is going to have rewards. But holiness is not essential to his salvation. Holiness is not an essential proof that he is saved. And so this man called the carnal man is told he ought to be holy, but he really need not be holy. If he is not holy he might lose some rewards and lose some blessings here and now, but he will still sneak into the gate, and he will make it to glory. Now this is basically the Carnal Christian Doctrine. This, I believe, is an accurate portrayal of this doctrine, a man who is saved but still walks in the flesh.
Now what are the results from the wide spread teaching of this doctrine? Will you listen to me carefully? What have been the results of the preaching of this doctrine for a period of probably at least eight decades, about three generations of Christians in out fundamental circles?
Firstly, there are many who name the name of Christ in our fundamental churches who are convinced in their own thinking that they are the children of God but they are people who seem to be at home in the realm of sin. They will confess that there is sin and failure in their lives, but they do this without any grief. They glibly claim 1 John 1:9 in the promise of forgiveness to those who confess. But all of this is a cut and dried heartless sort of ritual that has very little meaning, perhaps not even as much as the sincere Romanist who confesses his sins to the priest. Now this first result is that of producing a people who make no bones and have no reservation in naming the name of Christ but who seem to be perfectly at home in the realm of sin, who claim to be saved from hell, but who give no evidence of being saved from the love and the practice of their sins.
The second result in the thinking of people, that has been a terrible thing, is that it has raised a generation of people who are convinced that holiness of character, life, thought and motive, though it is good and commendable, is something that is optional. They do not view holiness as an absolute essential to genuine Christian profession, but is something that may or may not be present according to the spiritual desire and whims of the individual.
Now I firmly hold the Biblical truth that was brought into clear focus in the Reformation, having been lying buried for a number of years because of the teaching of Rome; that a man is not saved by his works. If we could somehow live a perfect life for a billion years this would not add one ounce of merit to the infinite merit to our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the absolute sufficiency of his death on our behalf. We are absolutely saved by grace. But the same Bible that teaches that we are saved by grace also teaches that when a man receives the gift of grace he is transformed by the Holy Spirit from a lover of sin to a lover of righteousness. So that the same scripture that says by grace ye are saved through faith and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not of works lest any man should boast. Also states, that without holiness no man shall see the Lord.
We must never hold the doctrine that we are justified by grace through faith at the expense, or hold it in such a way, that we will not face the clear implications of the biblical doctrine of holiness. For the Bible says that except a man be born again he can not enter the Kingdom of Heaven also states very clearly without holiness no man shall see the Lord.
What have been the results of separating these doctrines? First of all there have been some drastic results in the pew. There are many in the pews convinced that they are saved but they have never been transformed. They have managed to somehow deceive themselves into believing that you can receive Jesus without undergoing a moral reformation. That it is possible to have the Eternal Son of God dwell in your bosom by faith and still not experience what the Bible calls a new creation. Multitudes in their thinking have come to believe this.
It has had drastic results in the pulpit. I know of men who preach on Bible Conference platforms across our nation who are afraid to preach on 1 John 3. The results of this doctrine of the Carnal Christian being believed have shut the mouths of preachers because they are afraid to set out the fruits and the marks of a true Christian, and to tell men if they do not produce the fruits of repentance they have never been born again. They are afraid to do it! And this doctrine preached, believed and embraced is an easy one because it's the natural heart that loves it and has produced these results in our fundamental churches. Dear ones, I would rather die crying out against this doctrine and be called a fool and die a failure in the eyes of my generation than to ever preach that a man can enter into heaven who loves his sin. I don't care if I ever see a convert. It is truth! And oh dear ones my heart yearns for some of you reading this, because you have heard this doctrine, and you believe it and cling to it. And you are never going to get saved until you are ready to relinquish it, and God will meet you.
Now secondly, we want to examine this doctrine in the light of scripture. We have presented what this doctrine is, the three classes of people, the natural man, the carnal man and the spiritual man. We have seen some of the results of this doctrine in the thinking of people and in the actual experience in the pew and in the pulpit. Now we want to seek to expose this doctrine in the light of the scriptures. And as we do, let's keep before us constantly two principles, they ought to act as guide rails for us.
Whenever you come to deal with a problem in the scriptures keep these two principles before you. Number one; there is no contradiction within the scriptures. In other words Paul can't say something that will contradict James because the same Holy Ghost who spoke through Paul speaks through James. Right? The same Holy Ghost who spoke through John spoke through Paul; so that we can never receive one portion of the scripture in such a way that it makes us shut our eyes to another portion of scripture. The truth of God is a unit, now we may not be able to reconcile everything this side of glory, in fact there are a lot of questions that I have, and I've tried to reconcile them and wrestled with them until my brain was about to break. And I just had to say, Lord I see through a glass darkly, I thank you I've seen, but I sure see darkly. But though we can't reconcile everything we should never hold one truth so that it makes us embarrassed when we face another truth. If you are embarrassed by reading any portion of scripture then you are not rightly understanding another portion of scripture. Let's keep that principle before us. In other words, whatever Paul says about those people at Corinth being carnal, he certainly can't contradict what John said in 1 John 3 that he that is born of God does not practice sin. Whatever he is saying, he can't contradict this clear statement!
The second principle flows right out of this. You always interpret an obscure passage in the light of a clear passage. If you have a problem about a thing that is taught in 1 John check your cross references and you look over and you say here is another verse that deals with this, this is as clear as the nose on my face! John says he that is born of God does not practice sin, his seed remaineth in him. Now that is kind of obscure, what is that seed? So we turn to James and Peter, which says that the seed is the Word of God. So we brought the clear passages to the obscure passage and we got some light! Now we are going to do the same with this matter of the Carnal Christian.
The passage in 1 Corinthians 3 is not a doctrinal passage. It's a passage dealing with a particular problem at Corinth. Now if we are to understand what Paul is teaching in 1 Corinthians 3 let's first of all find out what Paul taught when he dealt with the great doctrines of holiness, sanctification and justification. Let's find where he is giving a doctrinal lecture. And whatever he says there let's interpret this other passage in the light of these.
Now, will you turn to Romans 8, and I want you to follow closely when you read verses 1 through 14. And I want you to notice two or three words that occur constantly. "There is therefore now no condemnation to them that who are in Christ Jesus who walk not after the flesh but after the spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus made me free from the law of sin and of death. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. To be carnally minded is death; to be spiritually minded is life and peace: the carnal mind is enmity against God; it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can it be: so then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. But ye are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. But if any man hath not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the spirit is life because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ Jesus from the dead shall give life also to your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you. Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh: for if ye live after the flesh, (ye shall lose some rewards?) ye shall die; but if through the Spirit ye do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are (Spiritual Christians? No, they are what?) sons of God."
Now in this doctrinal passage in the book of Romans, in which Paul is setting forth the great doctrines of the grace of God and the work of the Spirit; I want you to notice in Romans 8. He contrasts two things constantly, the realm of the flesh and the realm of the Spirit. The carnal mind and the spiritual mind, and notice what he says. These two are mutually exclusive. Lets look now at verse 5. They that are after the flesh, they mind the things of the flesh, fleshly desire, fleshly longings. Those that are after the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. Carnally minded, death, a man who is given over to his baser appetites and to the flesh, the end of that is death. The end of the Spiritually minded man, life and peace. The carnal mind is at warfare with God, it is not subject to God, it cannot be. They that are in the flesh cannot please God. But you say, 'Pastor? That's referring to the man who is saved but who is still living in the flesh, and he can't please God in that state.' Is it? Look at verse 9, "But ye are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. But if any man hath not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his."
Do you know what Paul is saying? Get this now! He says a man who is living in the realm of the flesh cannot please God. If his basic desires and interests are this life and this flesh he can't please God. But Paul says this isn't true of you IF the Holy Ghost dwells in you, and when you got saved he came to dwell in you. And if he hasn't come to dwell in you, you are none of his. But he has come, you have been basically taken out of the realm of flesh and you have been put in the realm of Spirit, See? I don't know if you do, but this thrills me. Two spheres, two, not three, carnally minded - death, spiritually minded -life. And then he moves on in verse 13, if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die. 'Oh, that means the sin unto death!' Does it? The most spiritual people I know die, this is not speaking about physical death. It is talking about spiritual death! If you live after the flesh ye shall die. But if by the Spirit ye do mortify, or put to death the deeds of the flesh ye shall live. (For) as many as are led by the Spirit of God they (and only they) are the sons of God.
Ah, but you say, 'pastor, you mean a Christian never stumbles?' Wait a minute now we are going to deal with that problem. But let's get this first. Don't jump ahead of me. Do you see what he is saying? We have two spheres of existence, flesh - Spirit. We have two destinies, life - death, not three, two, degrees within them, yes, but only two spheres. Study this chapter, read it over till the Spirit of God opens your eyes on this.
Go to Galatians 5 for a moment. Paul is dealing again with the two spheres of activity and interest. Now here is a doctrinal passage. We are going to interpret the obscure in the light of the clear. We are going to interpret in the light of the fact that there is no contradiction of what God says. Now beginning with verse 16. "This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, (So far we can all breathe easy, but notice the next ones.) hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like:" Anything that comes under the category of disobedience to the revealed will of God, that's the works of the flesh, Paul says. Now what is he saying? Notice carefully. Of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall (lose some rewards? No, what is it saying?) They shall not inherit the kingdom of God! Now Paul says, I made this clear to you. I told you this when I was with you before, and I will tell it to you again. Those who are given over to the flesh shall not inherit the Kingdom of God.
Now, he is going to draw a contrast. "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law." Now you'll be stopped there, and the preacher tenderly says, 'now dear Carnal Christian, you are saved, you are born again, but you have given over to nothing but the flesh and you would be so much better if the fruit of the Spirit were in your life. Now yield to Jesus as your Lord and begin to manifest the fruit of the Spirit in your life, and you will get some rewards.' That isn't what Paul says. Notice the next verse. After giving us two spheres, the works of the flesh and what they are like, then the fruit of the Spirit and what it's like, now notice verse 24. "And they that are Christ's have (past tense) crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts." He does not say only those that are spiritual. All who belong to Jesus have basically severed themselves from the realm of the flesh. Not perfectly, not completely. That is why he says in the next verse: "If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit." But basically he says those that belong to Jesus have crucified the flesh with the affections and the lusts thereof.
Now beloved, either these verses mean what they seem to teach, and the doctrine of the Carnal Christian is a damning heresy, or I have to rip out page after page from my Bible and twist the obvious meaning of Holy Scripture. This I will not do, and this you dare not do. Are you Christ's? Do you belong to him? Then demonstrate that the flesh and the affections have been basically crucified, and that the fruit of the Spirit is manifest.
But oh, sometimes in my life I know it is hard, nubby fruit. At times there is even some rotten apples hanging on the tree. Beloved, if there is nothing but rotten apples on the tree of your life then you need to hear what Jesus said. Make the tree good and it's fruit good, or the tree corrupt and the fruit corrupt for a tree is known by it's what? By it's fruit.
I am taking this time because this thing is so deeply ingrained I feel there is nothing but the sheer authority of the Word of God, reading it, looking at it, that will expunge it from our minds. Turn please to Romans 6 where again Paul is dealing in this doctrinal book with the basic issues of our allegiance, where it lies. Notice now what he says in verse 15. "What then? Shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?" Notice now, two spheres, sin unto death - obedience unto righteousness. But then he says, "But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you." That is just another way of saying you've committed yourself to Christ as he was offered in the Gospel, and what happened? "Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness," from the mastery and dominion of sin as your lord that you loved and obeyed and served. You are basically severed from it, and you became the servants of righteousness. "I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness. For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness. What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death. But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, (that's conversion) ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life."
Get that verse and get it now. Conversion is a change of masters. I exchange the master, sin, for the new master Christ who will work out in me the path of righteousness. What is the fruit? The fruit is unto holiness, and the end everlasting life. No man gets everlasting life but in the pathway of holiness, and no man can be holy until he is converted and has a change of masters by the grace of God. Isn't that what the book says? But we've read it this way. 'But I accepted Jesus, even though I am serving the flesh, and I have my fruit unto Carnal Christianity, and in the end the loss of a few rewards.' I am not going to butcher my Bible beloved! I am going to let God say what he says and preach it the way it is written. And preach it by his grace.
You ask, pastor, what does 1 Corinthians 3 teach? We will take that up in the next lesson. So I am going to close with this exhortation. Regardless of what it teaches, It can not contradict 1 john 3 where John says he that is born of God does not make a practice of sin, he is never at home in the realm of sin. Why? Because the Divine Seed is at work within him, and if he is in sin as a child of God, if he stumbles he feels unclean and disturbed until he is back in the way of holiness. He has an advocate with the Father if he stumbles, yes, John said. If any man sin we have an advocate with the Father Jesus Christ the Righteous, but that is for the man whose basic desire is to walk in the Light, walk in obedience and in all these other birthmarks that John gave us. Whatever Paul teaches us in 1 Cor. 3 he can't contradict 1 John 3. He said he wouldn't even contradict himself in Romans 8 where he said there are only two spheres, flesh and Spirit, two destinies, life and death. The child of God is one indwelt by the Spirit, and that indwelling severs him from the flesh. He can't contradict Galatians 5 where he says the works of the flesh will have no inheritance in the kingdom of God.
Those possessing the fruit of the Spirit, those who belong to Jesus, are basically committed to this. By whatever he says in 1 Cor. 3, I'm not going to contradict what he says anywhere else. Will you dare to do it? I could number many passages, which sets this truth forward.
I plead with you, young man and young woman, father and mother, if you are not pressing on in the path of holiness, if you are content with your present measure of grace, you've better beware. Listen to me parents, your children made a decision back when they were little children. Yet you don't see any evidence of the new birth, yet you have been breathing kind of easy and say, 'oh well, they aren't going on as they ought but they have accepted Jesus.' Is this true of you? Some of you parents listen to me. If your children die today and they wake up in hell, and you're not concerned about them, and you are not pleading to God for them because you believe this damnable heresy that they are saved but they are just carnal, why? Why?
I want my son to grow up knowing that until he is in the way of holiness he is not a Christian. I want him to know he cannot get in that way until he is born again, I want him to know that it is by grace, I want him to know that. But I don't want to raise a child who thinks he is saved because he has nodded his head to what his daddy believes and preaches. I want a boy who knows by the revelation of the Holy Ghost and faithful preaching of the Word, that until the Holy Ghost has sanctified his heart and has given him a heart that is holy he has no ground to claim he is saved. Oh, may God have mercy on some of you parents.
Some of you believe this ignorantly, I'm not scolding you. It is what you have been taught. But now you have no further reason to believe it. Some of you have believed it willingly because you've deceived yourself, and if you know that if your children don't have the real thing, then you are going to have to confess you don't have it because you don't have any more than they've got. That's why some of you parents believe this. You dare not say your children aren't saved because they bear as much fruit as you do. Does this strike fear to your heart? It does mine.
I have to give an account for you dear ones to whom God has sent me. Will you go on believing and confessing you are a Christian while you are at home in the realm of sin? Will you? Will you go on professing to know Jesus Christ as your savior, though you have never bowed to him as your Lord? Then my friend, unless God awakens you and turns you from that course you will go right on believing those things and go right on to judgment and out into eternity a lost soul. God grant that today, recognizing the error of your way, you might cry out unto God for mercy. It's a terrible thing for a man or woman to die having never heard the message of Christ and to go out into eternity. It is a terrible thing for a person to hear the message and never believe and go out into eternity. It's thrice terrible for a person to hear the message and believe a false truth about that message, or believe in a false doctrine that lets them be at home in their sins while they profess to belong to Jesus, and then go out into eternity. I think hell will be more tolerable for the demons than for such people who turn the grace of God into a license for their sins, and turn the blood of Jesus into an excuse to carry out their rebellion against God without any fear of punishment. Oh, may God awaken you, and God disturb you. Beloved this is a sobering thing; I am not talking about something that is out in right field in China somewhere. This is right here.
Let us bow in prayer, soberly reflect upon our own hearts and ask ourselves this question. Am I at home in the realm of sin? Am I at ease in my present state? Having made a trip to an alter five or ten years ago, have I breathed easy ever since I've done the ritual? Have I made my almighty decision, therefore God must take me to heaven? Oh dear one what a lie.

By Albert N. Martin

2006-05-29T16:13:00.000-07:00

The Visible Vs. The Invisible Church
by Pastor Brian Schwertley

What do we mean when we make the distinction between the visible and invisible church? And what is the reason for this distinction? Starting around the 4th century - the expression "Visible Church" was refered to by theologians, not to a building, but to the members on the rolls of a local church. In other words, all persons who are members of a local church are considered to be a part of the visible church.

On the other hand, the invisible church refers to those persons who have actually been regenerated or quickened by the Holy Sprit, God's elect or true believers. Augustine referred to the church as a mixed body, a visible people, but this people has both tares and wheat, as described by Jesus. In other words, there is no such thing as a perfect church, and there will always people in the church there with bad motives or are there for the wrong reason. There will always be people who claim to love Christ but whose heart is far from Him. Many, Jesus says, will say on that day, did we not do this and that in your name? Jesus wil then say, "I never knew you". These are descriptions of some people now sitting in your local church and Jesus says of them that he "never knew them!!!" Some persons are in church for show, to be seen by men as pious, others perhaps for a social club or to show of their ability to wax eloquent when discussing theology. These persons hearts are completely invisible to us, but of course, they are not invisible to God and only He can know who is truly regenerate, so we must be generous in our judgements.

The following is a detailed description of the orthodox doctrine of the visible and invisible church as explained by Pastor Brian Schwertley. It is well worth reading and quite helpful:

Perhaps the most succinct and the best statement of the church as invisible and visible is found in the Westminster Standards. Chapter 25, "Of the Church," states: "The catholic or universal church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all. The visible church, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation" (sections 1, 2).

Reformed theologians emphasize that this distinction does not mean that God has two separate churches. Indeed, they assert that Jehovah has founded one church, that Jesus has only one bride, people, church, or body. Our Lord does not have two churches but only one. The terms "invisible" and "visible" are used to describe two distinct aspects of the one church; or, to put it another way, the church is considered from two different perspectives. It is not that there are two separate air tight categories with one group on heaven and another on earth. On the contrary, there is a great overlap between both categories. All genuine believers are members of the invisible church whether they are living in heaven or on earth, whether they are alive or dead (i.e., have died physically). Not all professing Christians, however, who are members of the visible church, are members of the invisible church. Some people who make a profession of faith and are baptized are hypocrites. Such people do not truly believe in Christ (thus are never truly united to Him by faith) and are not part of the invisible church. This reality will receive further elucidation below.

The term invisible as defined by the Reformed symbols and theologians does not mean that some Christians are invisible like ghosts floating around in the spirit realm. It refers to the fact that the invisible church cannot be fully discovered, distinguished or discerned by the eyes of men, by empirical means. There are a number of reasons why this statement cannot be denied. (a) No one has the ability to look into the human heart and see if a person is truly united to Christ and regenerated by the Holy Spirit. That reality is the reason that, historically, Presbyterian churches have admitted members upon a credible profession of faith. (b) The inward, effectual calling of the Spirit and the application of redemption to the human soul are all spiritual, unseen events. Further, the Holy Spirit gives genuine saving faith only to the elect. The counterfeit faith of unregenerate professors of religion often is indiscernible to mere mortals. We can only perceive outward signs, statements and actions. No person has the ability to determine or observe the whole body of God's elect irrespective of time (i.e., throughout human history prior to the last judgment) or place (i.e., there are many real believers in the world of which we are not aware). Williamson writes: "It is invisible to us because it has extension in both time and space. It reaches from one end of the earth to the other, and from the beginning to the end of the age. But it is invisible only to us. It is not invisible to God. He who infallibly discerns the hearts of men, knows them that are his. "The foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal: 'the Lord knoweth them that are his' (II Tim. 2:19)."Jesus prayed for the invisible church—the elect present and not yet born in John 17. "Christ is speaking of a special company which had been given to Him. The reference, then, is to the sovereign election of God, whereby He chose a definite number to be His 'peculiar people'—His in a peculiar or special way. These are eternally His: 'chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world' (Eph. 1:4); and by the immutability of His purpose of grace (Rom. 11:29), they are always His."

The visible church is designated "visible" because it is discernable by the senses, by empirical means. It consists of everyone who professes the true religion along with their children. Because men do not have the ability to see into the minds of men and read the human heart, anyone who professes Jesus Christ in credible manner (i.e., he has a knowledge of the gospel, he is orthodox in doctrine, he professes faith in Christ and repentance toward God, he is not as far as anyone is aware committing habitual or scandalous sins) is allowed to join the church along with his children. In the visible church there are genuine believers who are truly united to Christ and false professors or hypocrites who only taste of heavenly gifts but do not really partake of the Savior. Their relationship to Him is only outward. "On this account the church is compared to a floor, in which there is not only wheat but also chaff (Matt. iii. 12); to a field, where tares as well as good seed are sown (Matt. xiii. 24, 25); to a net, which gathers bad fish together with the good (ver. 47); to a great house, in which are vessels of every kind some to honour and some to dishonor,—2 Tim. ii. 20."[5] People who are members of the visible church yet who never truly believe in Christ receive the outward privileges of membership (fellowship, the word, the sacraments and the guidance of church government), but are never regenerated, saved, forgiven, united to Christ and spiritually sanctified. The blood of Jesus never washes away their sins.

The visible church is set apart from the world by profession as well as its external government, discipline, and ordinances (e.g., the preached word and the sacraments). The members of the visible church have obeyed the outward call of the gospel, professing Christ, submitting to baptism and placing themselves under the preaching and authority of the local church. All such persons who obey the outward call of the gospel place themselves in covenant with God. They have separated themselves from the world and at least outwardly enjoy the privileges of being members of the visible church (e.g., the teaching of the word, godly guidance, the fellowship of the saints, etc.). While in a certain sense those who outwardly profess the truth participate in an external covenant with real responsibilities and privileges, it does not mean and theologically cannot mean that they truly participate in the saving merits of Christ. Such persons (for a time) are in the covenant but are never genuinely of the covenant. They participate in the covenant externally as professors of the true religion, but they never participate in the covenant of grace which flows from the eternal covenant of redemption...

It needs to be recognized that although God deals with the visible church as one church, as one people of God, the external administration of the church with the preaching of the word, the ordinances and discipline in the present and in the long run (e.g., after the final judgment, in the eternal state) only truly benefit the invisible church or the elect. While outward professors receive temporary benefits resulting from intellectual insights from the word, pressure to conform to God's law, the outward influence from a society of family-oriented, ethical people, etc., they receive greater damnation on the day of judgment for spurning the great light to which they were exposed under continual gospel preaching.

let us examine a few passages of Scripture that strongly support the traditional view of the church as visible and invisible:

a) 1 John 2:19-20: "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us. But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things." In this passage John discusses certain persons who at one time had professed apostolic doctrine and were members of the church.
Note the Spirit-inspired analysis of the apostle John regarding this all too common situation. John says, "they were not of us." That is, they were never genuine members of the church. While it is true that they were baptized and professed the true religion, they were never united to Christ or saved. They were chaff on the same floor as wheat (Mt. 3:12), or tares among the wheat (Mt. 13:24-25). They were members of the visible church but never of the invisible church. In this context John uses the term "us" (emon) in the sense of true Christians.
The apostle makes two observations ...First, he says that true Christians or members of the invisible church cannot apostatize: "for if they were of us [i.e., true believers], they would have continued with us." The fact that these professing Christians departed from the church is empirical proof that they were never true Christians. "They went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us." "The meaning here is that secession proves a want of fundamental union from the rest."[9] Second, John says that true believers have received the Holy Spirit from Christ which secures them against apostasy or desertion: "But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things." True believers or members of the invisible church cannot fall away because they are baptized with the Holy Spirit and thus permanently abide in Christ (see 1 Jn. 2:27; 5:4). Our Lord concurs: "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand" (Jn. 10:27-28).

1 Jn. 2:19-20 teaches: (1) the church is composed of true and false believers; and (2) the doctrine of perseverance. True Christians are united to Christ by the Holy Spirit and can never apostatize while those who are not baptized in the Spirit and not united to the Savior can. "Their presence in the visible church was temporary, for they failed in their perseverance. If they had been members of the invisible church, they would have remained with the body of believers."

b) Matthew 7:21-23: "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'" After warning His disciples of the danger of false prophets, Our Lord warns them of the consequences of a false profession of religion. He describes people who profess Christ; who acknowledge His Lordship; who are even engaged in some type of Christian service; yet who never had a saving relationship to Jesus. These people were obviously members of the visible church. But, they were never truly united to the Lord or saved; they were never members of the invisible church.

This section of Scripture contradicts Arminianism, which teaches that if people accept Jesus as Savior they are truly saved but can later reject the faith and fall away. It also explicitly contradicts the Auburn teaching that people who profess Christ and are baptized are really united to Him, loved by Him and forgiven by Him even if they are not among the elect (individually) and thus eventually fall away.[11] Note, Jesus says to all false professors of religion on the day of judgment, "I never knew you." Since God is omniscient, the word "knew" in this context does not refer to a mere intellectual knowledge (e.g., in John's gospel see: 1:47, 49; 2:24, 25; 21:17). Rather the term "knew" in this passage is used in the Hebraic sense of love, acknowledgment, friendship, intimate fellowship. Our Lord says that everyone in the visible church who is not really saved (i.e., they do not have true saving faith and the works that demonstrate the reality of that faith.) never, ever (i.e., for even a single moment) had a relationship or vital union with Him. There is no other way that the Savior's words can be interpreted without doing violence to the text of Scripture. Although Jesus' words are in complete harmony with the classic Protestant distinction between the visible and invisible church, they cannot be harmonized with the new Auburn theological innovations.

(c) Romans 9:6: "But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel." In the epistle to the Romans, Paul explicitly recognized the two-fold aspect of the church when he explains why the majority of the old covenant people of God did not embrace their Messiah.

In order to properly understand Romans 9:6 we briefly need to consider the context. In Romans chapter 8 Paul elaborates on the major theme that all those who are in Christ shall never be condemned. Believers are delivered from the law by Jesus' death. They are freed from the pollution of sin by the indwelling power of the Spirit. The Spirit's power also guarantees a believer's resurrection and glorification. Christians have their assurance rooted in their union with Christ. There also is the comfort of the intercession of the Holy Spirit. Toward the end of the chapter the safety and assurance of believers is founded upon God's electing love from eternity. Here the apostle discusses the unbreakable chain of the order of salvation (ordo salutis) and the fact that "if God is for us, who can be against us?"

In chapter 9, as Paul turns his attention to the design of God in reference to Jews and Gentiles, he needs to answer the question: "What about Israel?" If election and perseverance are rooted in the eternal-unchanging love of God, how can the mass apostasy of the Jewish people be explained? They were God's people, the church, who received the word, the promises, the sacraments and ordinances. Does not God's rejection of the Jewish nation contradict the promises to Abraham and the perseverance promised in chapter 8? No, absolutely not! The apostle explains that it is to true Israel (i.e., the elect or the invisible church) that the promises are made. It is to these people only that God's eternal electing love is directed. There is national election—the nation of Israel or the visible church—and within Israel, the visible church, there is true Israel—the invisible church. The Jews who did not reject the Messiah are "a remnant according to the election of grace" (Rom. 11:5).
For Paul there is true Israel (the elect, the invisible church, the remnant) within national Israel (the visible church). In other words the elect or the invisible church is hidden in the visible church. Further, when describing why the church is composed of true Israel (i.e., real believers) and false Israel (i.e., hypocrites) the apostle turns our attention to the doctrine of election

Paul discusses the twin brothers Jacob and Esau. These twins were conceived at the same moment and were born only minutes apart. Both were covenant children born of the patriarch Isaac. Both received circumcision and were part of the visible church—the covenant people of God. Since Esau was circumcised does Paul argue that he was loved and forgiven by God? No. God hated Esau before he was even born (Rom. 9:11-13). Although Esau was a circumcised member of the visible church, he was never united to Christ, loved by God or forgiven. Instead, he was a vessel of wrath prepared for destruction (Rom. 9:22). Esau's circumcision was never efficacious because he was never regenerated and given the gift of saving faith. As Paul says, "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but a new creation" (Gal. 6:15).

d) Another section of Scripture ... is 2 Peter 2. This chapter describes men who at one time were baptized, members in good standing and who had even become teachers. Peter, does not say that they were loved or forgiven but that they for a time "escaped the pollutions of the world" (2 Pet. 2:20). That is, they had an external reformation of behavior based on an intellectual knowledge of the word. Peter makes it crystal clear that these men were not united to Christ, regenerated, forgiven or saved because he says their natures were never, ever truly changed. He says, "But it has happened to them according to the true proverb: 'A dog returns to his own vomit,' and, 'a sow, having washed, to her wallowing in the mire'" (2 Pet. 2:22). A dog and a pig act according to their own nature. One can wash a pig and make it clean, but a pig is a pig. It will return to wallowing in the mud—in disgusting filth—because that is what pigs do. The apostle is saying that people who apostatize, who return to their former lifestyle, never had an interior work of the Holy Spirit. They were never regenerated and united to Christ. Their natures were never changed. The apostle is, in fact, teaching that if we could look at the hearts of those who apostatized, "we would discover that at no time were they ever activated by a true love of God. They were all this while goats, and not sheep, ravening wolves, and not gentle lambs." In other words the visible church contains not only real believers but also unsaved hypocrites.

2006-05-24T15:26:00.000-07:00

Some samples of Quranic contradictions for you
Prepared by: Syed Kamran Mirza
Special Note: Quranic ayats are taken mostly from the Quran translation of Maulana A. Yousuf Ali and Maulana Muhiuddin Khan. Hadiths were taken from Bukhari Sharif (Sahih).

Numerical Contradictions: There are many numerical contradictions in the Quran. God cannot make an error in doing simple calculations.

How many days did it take to create the Heavens and the Earth?

· Quran-7:54: Your guardian-Lord is Allah who created the heavens and earth in Six Days

· Quran-10:3: Verily your Lord is Allah, who created the heavens and earth in Six Days

· Quran- 11:7: He it is Who created the heavens and earth in Six Days

· Quran-25:29: He Who created the heavens and earth and all that is between, in Six Days

The above verses clearly state that Allah ( God) created the heavens and the Earth in 6 days. But the verses below state

· Quran-41:9 : Is it that ye deny Him who created the earth in Two Days ?

· Quran- 41:10: He set on the (earth) Mountains standing firm high above it, and bestowed blessing on the earth, and measured therein all things to give them nourishment in due proportion, in FOUR DAYS…

· Quran-41:12: So He completed them (heavens) as seven firmaments in Two days and …

Now do the math: 2 (for earth) + 4 (for nourishment) + 2 (for heavens) = 8 days; and not 6 days.

You can see similar mistakes in the verses: Quran-4:11, 4:12, and 4: 176 in inheritance law. In these verses one can see the total property after adding all distributed parts adds up more than the available property, i.e., the totals become more than 1 which are: 1.125 and 1.25. How come? A gross mathematical error, is it not?

Allah’s Days Equal to 1000 Years or 50,000 Years?

· Quran-22:47: A day in the sight of the Lord is like a thousand years of your reckoning.

· Quran-32:5: To Him, on a Day, the space whereof will be a thousand years of your reckoning

· Quran-70:4: The angels and the spirit ascend unto him in a day the measure whereof is fifty thousand years.

So, which one is it? Is the day of Allah equal to 1,000 earth years or 50,000 earth years?

Creation of the Heavens and the Earth

Which one was created first? As you will see in the verses below, Allah at one time says that Earth was created first and another time he says that the Heavens were created first.

· Quran-2:29: It is He who hath created for you all things that are on Earth; THEN He turned to the Heavens and made them into seven firmaments (Skies)….

· Quran- 79:27-30: Are you the harder to create, or is the heaven that He built ? He raised the height thereof and ordered it; and He has made dark the night thereof, and He brought forth the morning thereof. And after that, He spread (flattened) the earth

Now, does it match modern science ? Do you believe that, Earth was created first, and after that, God created Heaven ? Does modern science tell us that ? Or that there are SEVEN firmaments (layers)? Modern science tells us that, actually there is no such thing as a firmament or any roof over us, it is only a space with no known boundary at all. These verses simply reinforce the ancient idea of a ROOF over us which is called the SKY! How funny!

Sun-set and Sun-rise

The Quran teaches us that the Sun sets in a muddy spring:

· Quran-18:86: Till, when he (the traveler Zul-qarnain) reached the setting-place of the Sun, he found it going down into a muddy spring…

· Quran- 18:90: Till, when he reached the rising-place of the Sun, he found it rising on a people for whom We had appointed no shelter from it.

There are serious scientific errors here. Firstly, it is a scientifically accepted fact that the Sun never goes down into a muddy spring. Secondly, this seems to presuppose a FLAT Earth, otherwise how can there be an extreme point in the West or in the East? A sunrise there would be basically just the same as at any other place on this earth, at land or sea. It would still look as if it is setting “far away.” It does say, that he reached THE PLACE where the Sun sets and in his second journey THE PLACE where it rises.

A Resting Place for the Sun?

· Quran-36:38: And the Sun runneth on unto a resting place for him. That is the measuring of the Mighty, the Wise.

· Quran-36:39: And for the moon, We have appointed mansions till she return like an old shriveled palm leaf.

· Quran-36:40: It is not for Sun to overtake the moon, nor doth the night outstrip the day. They float each in an orbit.

Allah is indeed a great scientist. Where are the Sun and the moon situated? Can anybody tell me how they could collide/meet/overtake each other ? Are the Sun and moon neighbors to each other? I have the answer for this error: Ancient Allah saw (through observations with the naked eye) the Sun and moon travelling from east to west seemingly in the same part of the sky and on the same path. Yet they did not collide and continued to cause day and night, etc. Allah could hardly imagine that all these phenomena are simply due to Earth’s rotation and NOT by the Sun’s rotation. The Sun is stationary for Earth, because the Earth is stuck in the Sun’s Gravity, just as we are stuck in the Earth’ gravity. Allah never says anywhere in the whole Quran THAT THE EARTH ROTATES. Perhaps Allah could not feel Earth’s rotation.

A Resting Place for the Sun WAS CONFIRMED BY HADITHS (?)

· Sahih Bukhari Hadiths: Abzur Ghifari (ra) narrated: one day Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) asked me, “Abzar do you know after setting where does the Sun go?” I replied, I do not know, only Allah’s apostle could say better. Then the Prophet (SA) replied, “After setting, the Sun remains prostrated under Allah’s Aro’sh and waits for Allah’s command for rising again in the East. Day will come when sun will not get permission to rise again and Qeyamot will fall upon earth”.

Can anybody tell me what it is? It was the superstitious belief of ancient people reflected in the Quran and Hadiths by Allah. A 10-year-old boy would not tell such a fairy-tale today.

Why Allah created Stars:

· Quran gives us further scientific knowledge by telling us that the stars were created by Allah as missiles to throw at the devils:

· Quran-67:5: And We have (from of old) adorned the lowest heaven (sky) with lamps, and We have made such (Lamps as) missiles to drive away Satans…

· Quran-37:6-8: We have indeed decorated the lower heaven (sky) with beauty (in) the stars, (for beauty) and for guard against all obstinate rebellious Satans. So they should not strain their ears in the direction of the Exalted Assembly but be cast away from every side.

Thus, the stars are nothing but missiles to throw at devils so that they may not eavesdrop on the heavenly council. Once again we find how Allah was high on his superstitious weirdness.

Sky/Heaven is Nothing but A ROOF or Canopy over the Earth:

· Quran-21: 32: And We have made the sky a roof withheld (from them). Yet they turn away from its portents.

· Quran-31:10: He hath created the heavens (Skies) without supports (pillars) that ye can see, and hath cast into the earth firm Mountains/Hills, so that it quake not with you; and He hath dispersed…

· Quran-21: 32: And We have made the sky ( heavens ) as roof (canopy) well guarded…

· Quran-2: 22: Who has made the earth your couch, And the heavens (Sky) your canopy

Modern science tells us- the Earth is entirely surrounded by space and there is no boundary even if we go billions of trillions of miles in any direction. The question is: If there is no sky above us then how in the world does the question of pillars come in? Do we really have a roof above us? Is there a canopy (Shamiaa’na) above the earth? In most Bengali translations of the Quran all Maulanas write: Allah akashke samiaana bannei-ese.

The Quran claims Allah gives rain from above! Ordinary People consider Allah as residing in the sky above the earth. But in cosmological science there is no up or down, that is, earth revolves and there is no fixed above or below for the earth. Every direction in outer space can be up or down. Are mountains there to prevent the earth from shaking? Give me a break!

Once again Allah considered the sky as a roof over the earth which will break/be shattered during Doomsday

· Quran-78::19: And the heavens (sky) Shall be broken (opened) as if there were doors opens…

· Quran-82:01: When the Sky is cleft asunder

· Quran-69:16: And the sky will be Rent asunder, for it will that day be flimsy(soft)

· Quran-81: 2: When the stars fall, losing their luster.

Yousuf Ali comments in his Tafsir: The beautiful blue sky overhead (which we take for granted in sunshine) will be shattered to pieces. Modern science tells us that there is no such thing as a roof, sky or any canopy over the earth, rather all around the Earth is limitless space. Only Allah knows what will break/get shattered or will get soft/flimsy or how doors will open - there are no walls, so where will doors come from? In some Ayats Allah threatened kafirs by saying: “I (Allah) will throw broken pieces of sky over your head.”

Sun and Moon Rotates:

· Quran-31: 29: Seest thou not that Allah merges Night into Day and He merges Day into Night; That He has subjected the Sun and moon (to His law), each running its course for a term (time) appointed.

· Quran-21: 33: It is He who created the Night and Day, And the Sun and Moon; each of them swim (float) along in its own course.

Ayats mentioned above could be found over and over again and again in almost every page of the Quran. This is because Allah, standing in the open Arab desert, saw very well that every morning the SUN was rising from the east and gradually (at the appointed time) setting to the west, and as a result, day and night follow. Allah actually shared this misconception (the Sun moving) of pre-historic people. Every time Allah speaks of the Sun & Moon, he referred to Day & Night, as if it is due to the Sun’s movement that day and night follows. But surprisingly, all the hypocritical Mullahs give false credit to Allah by saying: Look, the Quran described the Sun’s movement 1400 years ago, which modern science only found out now. In the real world, the Sun takes 225 million years to make just one complete circle through the galaxy. And obviously this movement of the Sun has nothing to do with DAY & NIGHT of the earth. Actually, the Sun is stationary for the earth in a real sense, because the Earth is stuck in the giant gravitational force of the Sun. The Earth also moves along with the Sun wherever it goes, just the way that we are stuck to the Earth’s gravitational force and do not feel Earth’s movement at all. Why then, was Allah referring to the Sun’s movement again and again? I have already mentioned above, why Allah was mistaken about the Sun’s movements. Now dishonest Mullahs are claiming that this is science here. I wonder why Allah has to mention about the Sun’s 225 million year journey to tell about day and night? What does the Sun’s movement have to do with the day and night?

Earth is Spread Out Like a Carpet (Flat)

· Quran-15:19: And the earth We have spread out (like a carpet); set thereon mountains firm and immovable;

· Quran-78: 6-7: Have We not made the earth as a wide expanse, And the mountains as pegs (anchor)?

Allah was sure that the Earth is flat like a carpet and that mountains are there to anchor the earth so that the Earth does not shake with us. Allah is really an excellent scientist.

Here in this Verse, Allah Challenges People: Who Can Tell Whether the Conceived is Male or Female?

· Quran-31:34: Verily the knowledge of the Hour is With God (alone). It is He Who sends down rain, and He who knows what is in the wombs of mothers….

Who does not believe the fact that, actually mankind can predict very accurately (99.5%) when rain will fall and can predict (99.8%) the sex of the child inside a mother’s womb? Scientists also predict that, in the next five years weather predictions will be successfully correct almost 100%. Perhaps Allah could not imagine this.

Man is Created From Clotted blood?

· Quran-23:14: Then fashioned We the drop (semen) a CLOT OF CONGEALED BLOOD then fashioned We the clot a little lump (fetus), fashioned We the little lump into bones, then clothed the bones with flesh, and then produced it another creation. So blessed be Allah, the Best of Creators.

(Bengali translations of the Quran read: “Zamaa’t Raokto theeke Manoosh banieesi” And this Ayat has been repeated again and again throughout the Quran)

· Quran-75:38: Then he becomes a CLOT; then (Allah) shaped and fashioned…

· Quran-96:2: Created man, out of a mere clot of congealed blood

There are serious scientific problems here:

A blood clot can not grow into anything. This idea came from the Greeks. Aristotle erroneously believed that humans are originated from the action of male semen upon female menstrual blood, which is absolutely an incorrect assumption. The Quran’s assertion on the clot (alaqa) is completely wrong about human development, since there is absolutely no stage during which the embryo consists of a clot. The only situation in which an embryo might appear like a clot is during a miscarriage, in which case the clotted blood which is seen to emerge (much of which comes from the mother) is solidified and by definition no longer alive. Therefore, if ever an embryo appeared to look like a clot it would never develop any further into a human; it would be a dead mass of bloody miscarriage. Since Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) had some thirteen wives it is entirely possible that he would be very familiar with miscarriages.

Modern science tells us that the formation of human embryo is a seamless continuation from conception to birth, hence there are no hard-and-fast boundaries of stages as the Quran described. The Quran described 4 stages which matches exactly with Galenic description of the development of the human embryo (which was proved wrong by modern science).

Creation of bones and clothing of bones with flesh: According to modern embryologists including Prof. ___Moore of Canada____, the tissue from which bone originates, known as mesoderm, is the same tissue as that from which muscle (flesh) develops. Thus bone and muscles begin to develop simultaneously, rather than sequentially (as the Quran tells us). Moreover, most of the muscle tissue that we human have is laid down before birth, but bones continue to develop and calcify (strengthen with calcium) right into one’s teenage years. So it would be more accurate if the Quran had said that muscles started to develop at the same time as bones, but completed their development earlier. The idea that bones are clothed with flesh is not only scientifically completely wrong/false, but was directly copied from the ancient Greek doctor Galen’s hypothesis.

Also, the idea of saying: “made into bones and clothed the bones with muscle” came from the technique of making animal statues (Moorthy) out of rod and cement or mud. People usually make the skeleton (out of rod or stick) first and, then cover it up with cement or mud. This is scarcely a scientific description of embryonic development. It is rather a description of a layman.

Which one is correct?

· Quran-2:256: There is no Compulsion in religion….

OR

· Quran-9:29: Fight those who do not profess the true faith (Islam) till they pay the polltax (jiziya) with the hand of humility.

· Quran-9:5: Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them and take them captive, and besiege them and prepare for them each ambush….

· Quran-47:4: When you meet the unbelievers in the Jihad strike off their heads….

· Quran-2:191: And slay (kill) them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out such is the reward of those who suppress faith.

· Quran-8: 65: O Apostle! Rouse the believers to the fight…(against) unbelievers.

Very often apologetics claim that, Islam is a religion of peace and there is no compulsion. Yet, punishment of an apostate in Islam is, of course, death penalty.

In Many Ayats Allah Claimed That, He Has Given the Quran in Easy and Clear Language so that, it will not be difficult to understand by ordinary Arabs.

· Quran-44:58: Verily, We have made This Quran easy in the tongue, in order that they may give heed.

No matter which translation of the Quran we read, the Quranic materials remain the same to us and every sentence is self-explanatory. It does not take a rocket scientist to comprehend the message Allah wanted to transmit for Arabs. Yet, bigoted Mullahs will always blame translators for Quranic contradictions/errors/inconsistencies etc. and will try to find lame excuses to cover up Allah’s ignorance.

2006-05-20T18:43:00.000-07:00

I have heard a lot of Christians say you can lose their salvation and go to hell, this view is the most popular belief in Christendom in our time, but what does the bible teach on this matter. We will go verse by verse of those favorite scripture of those who deny eternal security. Here is one of their favorite scriptures, Hebrews 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partaker of the Holy Ghost. Ok lets Take a look at these passages, well the first thing I see is the word enlightened, but it does not equate being saved actually has nothing to do with salvation or a person being regenerated. The next word is tasted does that mean they eat well lets see what the Greek says this word means, Kittel word dictionary says this is to Strictly “to taste"their was no one consuming or being regenerated. Lets see what a good commentary says. Bible students over the years have come up with several approaches to this serious passage. One view is that the writer is warning us against the sin of apostasy, willfully turning one’s back on Jesus Christ and returning to the old life. According to them, such a person would be lost forever. I have several problems with this interpretation. To begin with, the Greek word apostasia is not used in this passage. The verb for “fall away” (Heb. 6:6) is parapipto, which literally means “to fall alongside.” Second, we always interpret the obscure by the obvious. There are many verses in Scripture that assure the true believer that he can never be lost. In fact, one of the greatest arguments for security is the last section of this chapter! (Heb. 6:13–20; see also John 5:24; 10:26–30; Rom. 8:28–39) Those who teach that we can lose our salvation also teach that such a person can be restored. But this passage (Heb. 6:4–6) teaches just the opposite! If you omit the intervening clauses, the statement reads: “For it is impossible... to renew them again to repentance.” In other words, if this refers to apostasy, once a saved person turns his back on Christ, he cannot be restored to salvation. He is lost forever. Others claim that the people addressed were not true believers. They had cooperated with the Holy Spirit up to a point, but were not actually born again. Well, let’s examine the description of these people and see if they possessed true salvation. They were “enlightened” (Heb. 6:4). The “once” means “enlightened once and for all.” The way this same verb is used in Hebrews 10:32 indicates an experience of true salvation (see 2 Cor. 4:4–6). They “tasted of the heavenly gift” (Heb. 6:4), and “tasted the good Word of God, and the powers of the world [age] to come” (Heb. 6:5). To claim that these people “tasted but did not eat” is to base interpretation on one meaning of an English word. God permitted His Son to “taste death for every man” (Heb. 2:9). Surely Jesus Christ did not simply sample death on the cross! “Taste” carries the idea of “experience.” These Hebrew believers had experienced the gift of salvation, the Word of God, and the power of God. Doesn’t this describe authentic salvation? They “were made partakers of the Holy Spirit” (Heb. 6:4c). To suggest that they only went along with the Holy Spirit to a certain extent is to ignore the simple meaning of the verb. It means “to become sharers.” These same people were not only “sharers of the Holy Spirit,” but also “sharers of the heavenly calling” (Heb. 3:1) and “sharers of Christ” (Heb. 3:14). Wiersbe, W. W. (1996, c1989). The Bible exposition commentary. "An exposition of the New Testament comprising the entire 'BE' series"--Jkt. (Heb 6:1). Wheaton, Ill.