When people ask about my website I often warn them that there is something  to offend everyone on my website. I don’t write to try to offend everyone but it turns out that telling people my Christian worldview makes me an equal opportunity offender. If you  read all of my articles something is sure to offend you. However, if we really could all agree on every point we all could just do away with thinking.

Obviously much of what I write offends non Christians so if your one of those, you will not have to look far on my website to be offended. For that reason I will not get into all the articles that will offend all you unbelievers. People who do not know God cannot know the truth. (See I just said something to offend almost everyone) I will just tell you here how you can know God and how one really becomes a Christian.

Some of what I write offends Catholics because I tell them the truth. (I was once a Catholic and I I know how most in Thyatria think.)

Some of what I write offends Pentecostals and Charismatics. I was part of your movement as well, and I am aware of the spiritual games you play and how you are often led by the nose by control freaks and hucksters. Christians do not need to get the Holy Ghost in your back rooms because true Christians already got the Holy Spirit when they were saved.  (Maybe I  am a Charismatic by any strict definition because I believe the gifts did not cease. But, I do not believe some of what are claimed to be manifestations of the spiritual gifts, actually are.)

Liberal Christians are offended for many reasons. They disagree with most everything I write. That is because I disagree with most everything they believe. I believe the Bible is the infallible word of God and is meant to be taken literally.  (I never was one of those liberal Christians and never will be.)

I write something to offend conservative Christians as well, for example:

I am sure a few of my articles offend conservative Baptists along with other conservative denominations because I like to drink something fermented once in a while and have a hard time stomaching rule by committee, covenants, putting burdens on the poor in the Church, and often wooden interpretations of various Bible passages. (Although, I often am a member of some Baptist fellowship if the leadership actually permits thinking.)

Many of my articles would offend the amillennial believers since I think it is error. I believe in premillennial theology.

There is no doubt that there would be something to offend everyone that believes in Replacement Theology or Supersession Theology

I know I offend post toasties that think the Church is going through the tribulation because they often take the time to tell me I am leading people to hell with my pre-trib Rapture Theology. They tell me Christians will lose their faith in tribulation. I think they are very confused.

I certainly would offend Word Faith Kingdom Now, blab-it-and-grab-it, prosperity teachers with often their Dominion Theology. I think the leaders are all heretics.

I also write things to offend those who have brought into the teachings of pop psychology and just love to have their purpose driven pop psychology book studies in their church.

I even write something to offend some pre-trib believers when I suggest Jesus is not coming in glory by 2019, the Antichrist will not be a Muslim, pagan’s do not know Bible prophecy, you cannot figure out the date of the second coming through Bible codes and that conspiracy theories are mostly hype from those making a living selling hype to those wanting hype.

I write and offend seeker friendly leaders and their supporters and the various emergent varieties of Christians, and I should do more of that.

I write and offend global warming fear mongers in Christianity because I tell them that man-caused global warming is junk science promoted by the world elite to tax them and bring them under global governance.

If you have not found something I wrote to offend you yet,  just keep reading. I am sure I have someone to offend everyone somewhere. If you have a certain topic in mind that you know will offend you, you might do a search from the search box on either the homepage of my website or the homepage of this World and Church Trends and Bible Prophecy blog.

I do try to be an equal opportunity offender.

Polls indicate that many that call themselves Christians today do not even believe the essential fundamental foundational truths of Christianity.

Can anyone be a Christian and not believe in the foundational truths of Christianity? That is not for me to judge but if you have doubts about believing these things you might judge yourself. Do you just not understand basic Christian truths because you were never taught them or do you deny them and thus deny the Christian faith?

I do not think that the fundamental foundational truths of Christianity are optional or that they can be explained away by those trying to redefine Christianity to fit their own belief system. These foundational truths of Christianity are absolute truths from God and if you deny it, what does that say about your claim to be a Christian?

Foundational truths of the Christian faith

• Salvation comes by God’s Grace through faith (belief in God promises) in Jesus Christ. Your own good works cannot earn you salvation.
• There is only one way to God and that is through Jesus Christ. Other religions are not alternate paths to God.
• Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God, the only visible image of God, and is the Creator of everything seen and unseen.
• Jesus lived a sinless life and was the innocent Lamb sacrifice of God whose blood was shed to take away sin.
• Jesus was both fully God and fully human.
• All Humankind is sinful and therefore all must come to Jesus Christ to be cleansed of their sin or they will be eternally separated from a Holy God.
• Those that deny the Son of God also deny the Father because they are one God (they are unified).
• Jesus died and death could not hold Him.  God rose the Body of Jesus from the dead and Jesus ascended to the throne of God in heaven.
• All in  Christ have the Holy Spirit as a witnesses and a helper, all members of the Body of Christ are new spiritual creations.
• Those that trust in Jesus Christ for their eternal salvation can never be lost.
• Satan also known as the Devil is real and is a powerful spiritual adversary. (A Christian’s defense from Satan is putting on the whole armor of God – Eph 6:7)
• Jesus authenticated the Old Testament scriptures as coming from God. The New Testament scriptures are authenticated by the eye witnesses of Jesus Christ, and by the Holy Spirit within the Body of Christ. The Christian Bible is the very word of God when transcribed and translated accurately. Therefore. all scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness (2 Ti 3:16).
• There is a Lake of Fire reserved for those who oppose or reject Jesus Christ.
• Jesus is coming again in Glory and every eye will see Him when He comes. He will judge the living and the dead and God will  then create a new heaven and a new earth where there is no more sin, sickness, death or sorrow.

I might have missed some foundational truths of the faith.  If so you are free to add them.

This is another good teaching by Jack Kelley on the seven dispensations and why mankind fails in all of them. Dispensationalism is sometimes misunderstood. Dispensationalism is not different ways to find salvation; it is different rules for living in each dispensation for those who can be saved on the basis of their faith in God. Man is saved by God’s grace through man’s faith in all seven dispensations.

These seven different ways of God dealing with man on earth are probably demonstrations to man, angels and all creation about the sin nature of man and Satan. No matter how God deals with man on earth Satanic deception comes and most of mankind rejects God. However, in each dispensation God has His own elect on earth who overcome Satan and the world through their belief and trust in God.

Yes, even the dispensation of Grace (The Church age) is also a failure for mankind. The promise of a free gift of salvation for those who confess Jesus as God’s sacrifice for man’s sins will be rejected by the overwhelming majority on earth. Even the seventh dispensation, the Kingdom Age, will end in mankind’s failure because Satan will deceive those living in this restored paradise on earth and lead them to rebel against God’s elect. In all dispensations man will prove that in his fallen sinful flesh he cannot fellowship with God. The only way to eternal salvation is through a spiritual rebirth from God’s Son. There is no other name given in which man must be saved (Act 4:12).

I will add this, The dispensations all end in failure for those unbelievers following Satan but all seven dispensations successfully reach those who believe God.

Read the full article to get a complete picture of what Jack Kelley is teaching and to get a description of the seven different dispensations on earth.

Life On Earth In The Millennium | GraceThruFaith

by Jack Kelley

Hal Lindsey once speculated that at his judgment Satan hurled two accusations at God. “You’re not just and You have no love.” In our last study we saw how God demonstrated His perfect justice with Israel and His perfect love with the Church. Israel lived under an absolutely just system of law. It was clear and concise, made no exceptions, and showed no favoritism. There was blessing for obedience and punishment for disobedience in an obvious cause and effect relationship. What they did determined what they got. God said to them, “Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” (Exodus 19:5-6)

The Church was shown the incomparable riches of God’s grace. We’re the most blessed of any group of humanity and the only thing asked of us is that we accept by faith the free gift of salvation, purchased in advance for us with God’s own life. Yes, God is pleased if we live our lives in a manner that expresses our gratitude to Him, but the only thing He requires is that we believe in the one He has sent. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. (John 3:16)

In the Kingdom Age believers will be saved by faith, like the Church, but will be required to keep the Law as evidence of their belief, like Israel. Perfect justice, perfect love. This will be God’s final answer to Satan and His final attempt to dwell among His people in peace. Will it work, or like Israel and the Church before it, will the Kingdom Age end in failure?

We’ve only talked about Law and Grace but there were actually four other attempts at peaceful coexistence between God and man leading up to them. For a complete understanding of man’s history with his Creator, we’ll need to review these others as well. They’re called dispensations, or administrations, and all together there are seven of them.

The 7 Dispensations

Throughout history God has dealt with His people in different ways as part of the process of revealing His character. Each of these dispensations has has begun with an agreement between God and man that man subsequently violated, ending the relationship in failure and requiring a judgment from God.

Innocence:
Conscience:
Human Government:
Promise:
Law:
Grace:
Kingdom:

Some in the Church might question the view that the Age of Grace has been a failure, but that’s because we’re among the few who have accepted the Lord’s free gift of pardon and will therefore enjoy its benefits. Remember, God’s desire is to reconcile us to Himself (Colossians 1:19-20). He doesn’t want for any to perish, but for all to come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9). And yet over the last 2,000 years most people have turned down His gift and gone their own way. After doing everything He could, short of violating man’s free will and forcing him to accept the pardon He offered, most of mankind will have rejected Him. Can you blame Him for being so angry as to unleash the full fury of His wrath against them?

Even in the Church the response to God’s gift of eternal Life has been more apathy than adoration. When less than 10% of people who claim to be born again have adopted a Christian world view, it’s clear that there’s been a serious disconnect between His gift and our gratitude. When compared to the desired goal the Age of Grace has been a failure.

None of this is any more of a surprise to God than the outcome of His previous attempts. He doesn’t do things so He can see how we’ll respond. He already knows that. He does things so we can see how we’ll respond. Paul said every thing that was written in the past was written to teach us. (Romans 15:4) So far the lesson has been that no matter what God has done to draw us near, man is untrustworthy and rebellious, pushing God away and bringing judgment upon himself.
Now For The Kingdom

OK, so what about the Kingdom Age, will it be a failure too?

In an event that was later modeled in the Biblical adoption ceremony (Galatians 4:4-7), the Father formally named His Son heir of His estate and bequeathed His inheritance to Him. All the nations are His, and He has the authority to rule them as He pleases. Man’s choice will be to obey or suffer the consequences. Obedience will be rewarded with blessing, but rebellion will bring swift destruction.

We’re neither told how many will be saved during the Millennium, nor what their destiny will be. What we are told is at the end of the 1000 year Kingdom Age Satan will be freed and will have no trouble recruiting a large army for one last attempt to regain his lost empire. He’ll find a ready audience for his deception and his army will soon be as numerous as the grains of sand on the seashore. From all over the world they’ll come to surround God’s people and His Holy City. But in one sudden burst of flame from Heaven they’ll be devoured and Satan will be cast into the Lake of Fire for eternity. (Rev. 20:7-10) Once again, man rebels, God judges and another Age ends in failure.

God’s response to Satan’s accusations will be complete. Satan’s judgment will be final. Heaven and Earth will be purified. Eternity will begin. And God will reign supreme. Hallelujah! 05-30-09

Full article

This is a good article that refutes Amillennialism. If you read the whole article that was quoted in part here and still do not understand the issues or still want to believe in Amillennialism you might read my own article on Amillennialism. It gives many more arguments and details. The facts are that believing Amillennialism requires inconsistent hermeneutics and inconsistent Eschatology.

Inconsistent Eschatology: Examining Amillennialism

Many read the Bible with two competing views mixing pre, post, and amillennial scholarship through the use of randomly bought commentaries. This “grab bag” of interpretations is sloppily promoted through prophetic guess sessions linked with every current event to hit the papers. Chafer answers this current trend with these pointed words:

Lastly, the Scriptures present but one system of truth. Men may not comprehend it, and of those who disagree respecting interpretation one or both sides of the controversy may be wrong; but both cannot be right. The Word of God does not lend itself as support to postmillennial, amillennial, and premillennial schemes of interpretation at the same time. It is for the student to weigh these claims and to be convinced of which one is Biblical.[5]

Answering the claim that prophecy should be avoided because it is “divisive,” Chafer goes on to say that he believes the premillennial position to be irrefutable and points out that there are no more problems in Eschatology than in Soteriology.[6] Disagreements as divisive as the raging debate between Calvinism and Arminianism do not hinder the great creedal statements made by the reformers but disunity over even the slightest aspect of Eschatology has been seized on as a reason to neglect prophecy.[7]

Prophetic Hermeneutics

It is of great significance that some amillennialists have admitted that if they took prophetic Scripture at face value they would have to be premillennialists.[15] Being that God has spoken to us through the medium of language, it is not unreasonable to think that He would not write something for us that we could not understand. The allegorical method of interpretation used by the amillennialist for prophecy misses the main point of allegory and symbolism; to make a picture clearer. Interpreting the promise in Isaiah 11:6-9 that ferocious animals will be tame as referring to the spiritual transformation of Saul, changed from a “vicious wolf-like persecutor to a lamblike follower of Christ,” is plain wrong.[16] The rules for interpretation are not arbitrary because they are the rules we use everyday in order to understand one another. To say “I ran for a mile,” would imply, in normal everyday speech that I actually ran for a literal mile. It is the normal meaning of my words that are being interpreted. The Bible is a human book, and God is a God of order who makes sense. It would be false to say that I meant that I ran for spiritual miles. Likewise, if I were to say that I ran like the wind it would be false to think that I was invisible and I went across the water. But rather that I, being a person, ran as fast as I could. In this case, depending on the context that I am not crazy, it would seem I am literally using an idiom. Whenever we read or hear anything we presume the literal meaning, which includes figures of speech, until the nature of the communication gives us reason to presume otherwise. This is the way the Bible is to be interpreted. To do otherwise gives one no safeguard to the imaginations of man and leaves God without the same authority we give ourselves, the ability to define our own terms when we communicate.

Full article

There is a rather heated controversy stirring between traditional Bible prophecy authors who think the Antichrist will be a western figure and more recent authors who think the Antichrist will come out of Islam.

I wrote on this in July and gave some of my thoughts why the Antichrist would not be a Muslim and his Beast Kingdom would not be Islam.

http://www.thepropheticyears.com/wordpress/2008/07/24/will-the-antichrist-and-his-beast-government-come-from-islam.html

In the last Jan/Feb issue of Lamplighter magazine Dr. Reagan critiques four books that make the claim that the Antichrist is out of Islam and Dr. Reagan gives his views why this is not the case and is sloppy exegesis.

http://www.lamblion.com/files/publications/magazines/Lamplighter_JanFeb09_ACMuslim.pdf

Well that magazine article stirred up a hornets nest from the authors of the books and some of their supporters. The one sided rebuttal to what Dr. Reagan said about their claims can be found here.

http://www.prophezine.com/

Bill Salus author of Isralestine recently posted an article on his blog that supports the views of Dr. Reagan and there is now a pretty interesting discussion on all this on his blog. The first link contains my comments to Bill’s article and the second link is Bill’s blog post where the article is posted and where the discussion is taking place.

http://www.thepropheticyears.com/wordpress/2009/01/10/debunking-a-muslim-beast-antichrist.html

http://prophecydepot.blogspot.com/2009/01/does-daniel-debunk-assyrian-antichrist.html

Yesterday I posted a comment on Bill’s blog why I agree that the Antichrist does not come out of Islam.  I wrote a email to Bill last night after he alerted me about what was being said on Prophezine by those attacking Dr. Reagan. (Bill asked permission to post the email I sent him on Jan 14th early yesterday but maybe he since changed his mind about posting it since I have not seen it on his site.)

I guess nothing further needs to be said by me at this time since my views are on most of the links I just sighted. You might want to follow this discussion because all of a sudden there are many jumping on the Islamic Antichrist bandwagon and obviously by what I said I think that belief can lead to misdirection and great deception. My position and argument is more from logic and the big view rather than straining at scriptural gnats to try to find a word or two to support a theory I want to believe. Maybe that is not a very scholarly approach but I never claimed to be a scholar. I do claim to have some common sense logic and at least a wee bit of understanding about the big prophetic picture.

One thing that I did not mention in my comments is that the nations that are under Islam have no real military power and anyone thinking that they will suddenly develop modern military capabilities to fulfill the Beast Kingdom that no one can war against is just believing in fantasy. Now if you want to believe the Antichrist is supernatural and has supernatural capabilites I guess anything is feasable but if he were that powerfull (and he will be) what need does he have of any world religious beliefs? The fact is that he does not, and that is why he turns against and burns the world relgious Harlot as soon as he receives Satan’s supernatural powers.

Here is another article by Dr. Reagan that gives the profile of the Antichrist

Apparently Steve Gregg tried to come to the rescue of Partial Preterism after Dr. Norman Geisler reviewed “The Apocalypse Code” book written by Hank Hanegraaff that attacked premillennial theology and those who are looking for the soon return of Jesus in the Rapture.

I guess someone needed to come to the rescue and bail out Preterism after some of Hank Hanegraaff’s erroneous assumptions were pointed out by Dr. Geisler in his review and some of Hanegraff’s book could not even be fully accepted by preterists. This is the response by Dr. Geisler to Steve Gregg’s apparent defense of partial preterism.

In this article Dr. Geisler is brilliant and often demolishes the arguments of Steve Gregg’s Partial Preterism Theology, often with many of the inconsistent silly arguments of Gregg and other preterists.

What is quoted bellow are just a few of the many examples given in the full article. Also go to Norman Geisler Articles for his other articles on this and other topics. Dr. Geisler is a one of the great minds of our time and I highly recommend that anyone interested in Bible prophecy absorb his teachings.

A Response to Steve Gregg’s Defense of Hank Hanegraaff’s Partial Preterism

By Norman L. Geisler

My comments will be divided into two basic categories. First of all, several areas in which we are in agreement will be mentioned. Second, comments on numerous points of disagreement with his defense of partial preterism, a view he shares with Hank Hanegraaff, will be discussed.

Eleventh, it is amusing that Gregg uses a third century heretical teacher, Origen, as a basis for his amillennial view and dismisses earlier second century orthodox Fathers as a basis for futurism. Further, contrary to Gregg, Renald Showers (in Maranatha, Our Lord, Come!) has demonstrated that the very earliest Fathers believed in an imminent coming of Christ, not just the fourth century Ephraem. This is to say nothing of the inspired writings of the NT which proclaim Christ’s imminent return repeatedly (Jn. 14:1-3; 1 Cor. 1:7-8; 15:51-53; 16:22; Phil. 3:20-21; 4:5; Col. 3:4; 1 Thes. 1:10; 2:19; 4:13-18; 5:9, 23; 2 Thes. 2:1; 1 Tim. 6:14; 2 Tim. 4:1; Titus 2:13; Heb. 9:28; Jas. 5:7-9; 1 Pet. 1:7, 13; 1 Jn. 2:28-3:2; Jude 21; Rev. 2:25; 3:10; 22:7, 12, 20 ). Passages like “The Lord is at hand” (Phil. 4:5) and “the coming of the Lord is at hand” (Jas.5:8) can hardly mean anything other than imminent, unless one is a full preterist and denies a literal future Second Coming, claiming Christ returned in the first century. He summarily dismisses all this with a vague “for all anyone can say” and a guilt-by-association with the Word of Faith movement!

Twelfth, after rejecting the early Fathers who were opposed to preterism, Gregg inconsistently appeals to the early Fathers to justify his amillennial views. He speaks of the pretrib beliefs before Ephraem in the fourth century as unsupported by earlier Fathers. Yet, he criticizes futurist who use the early Fathers to support their view (see “Sixth” above).

Thirteenth, he rejects the dispensational belief in a literal restoration of Israel which is firmly based in the historical-grammatical interpretation of Scripture (see Geisler, ibid., chap. 15). Yet he claims to hold the historical-grammatical hermeneutic.

Eighteenth, Gregg dismisses a massive array of unconditional promises that are based on the historical-grammatical interpretation which says that there will be a literal restoration of ethnic Israel to their land (see our Systematic Theology, vol. 4, chaps.14-16). None of the passages he cites deny this future for Israel, and numerous passages he does not cite affirm that there will be one (Gen. 12-17; 2 Sam. 7; Psa. 89; Mt. 19:28; Acts 1:6-8; Acts 3:19; Rom. 11, and many more). So strongly are these texts in favor of a literal restoration of the land and throne promises to ethnic Israel that even some non-premills like Vern Poythress and Anthony Hoekema have been forced to acknowledge such a future for Israel. And not to see that Paul is speaking of ethnic Israel in Romans 9-11 (which he calls Israel “my kinsmen according to the flesh” (9:2) to whom God gave “the covenants” and “Promises” (9:4) is a bold act of exegetical blindness. And it is this same “Israel” in this same passage of which Paul says they will be “grafted into their own olive tree” (11:24) because “the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable” (11:29). Ironic as it may seem, a fundamental problem with reformed amillennialism is that it does not believe in unconditional election–at least not for Israel! As for the clear literal truth that Jesus will literally come again with his literal twelve disciples who sit on twelve literal thrones and reign over the literal “twelve tribes of Israel” (Mt. 19:28), the best Gregg can offer is “the suggestions” that “this is not the only way in which Matt. 19:28 can be interpreted.” Of course, it isn’t; there is the spiritualistic way Gregg interprets it as “a present reality.” But this is certainly not the result of the historical grammatical hermeneutic preterists profess to accept. Nor is his contention that Jesus “unambiguously” established His kingdom at His first coming, as any literal understanding of numerous passages reveals (see Matt. 19:28; Acts 1:6-8; 3:19-21; Rom. 11:11-36). For an example of straining out a hermeneutical gnat and swallowing a doctrinal camel, Gregg declares of Revelation 20 that “the passage says ‘a thousand years.’ It does not say, ‘a literal thousand years.’” The passage also says “the Devil” (v. 2) and not “a literal Devil,” but does this give us warrant for denying a literal Devil. It also speaks of “nations” (v. 3), martyrs (v. 4), “heaven” (v. 1), and even “Jesus” (v. 4). But surely all these are literal. Sure, there are figures of speech used in the text like “key” (v. 1), but the literal method of interpretation has always allowed for figures of speech about literal realities (see ibid., chap. 13). It simply insists that the figures of speech and symbols are about literal realities (cf. Rev. 1:20)

Nineteenth, when confronted with the obviously literal land promises to Abraham’s descendants (Gen. 13-15), Gregg replies, “I don’t find the word ‘literal’ in any of the passages cited.” Yet, he later says these literal promises were literally fulfilled in the days of Joshua–something that could not be true since they are repeated after Joshua’s time (Jer. 11:5; Amos 9:14-15; Acts 1:6-8; Acts 3:19-21; Rom. 11). As for insisting on the use of the word “literal” to determine whether a passage is literal, I would suggest that he look at the death and resurrection of Jesus passages again. The last time I looked the word “literal” was not in the resurrection accounts. Nor do I find it in Genesis 1-3. But there again, consistency of hermeneutic is not a primary characteristic of the preterist position. Further, it is far from “clear” that Heb. 4 or Gal. 4 teaches there is no ethnic fulfillment of the ethnic promises to Israel. On the contrary, it is a denial of both God’s unconditional grace and of the historical-grammatical interpretation of numerous passages already mentioned. Just because Abraham has a spiritual seed does not mean there are no promises for his ethnic offspring.

Twentieth, as to the promise that the land promises to Israel would be “forever,” Gregg says two things: 1) The Hebrew word for “forever” (olam) does not always mean eternal. While this is true, it is also true that it can. And when it does not, it certainly means a long period of time. But Israel has never occupied all the land designated in these promises for a long period of time. As all good interpreters know, the meaning of a word is discovered by its context. And the context of Psalm 89:37 declares that the Davidic covenant will be “established forever like the moon.” And the last time I looked the moon was still in the sky! 2) Greggs wrongly assumes God’s promises to Abraham and David were conditional, but they clearly were not. Abraham was not even conscious when God made a unilateral unconditional promise to him (in Gen. 15:12), and Psalm 89:31-36 declares that even “if they break my statutes,” God promised “Nevertheless My loving kindness I will not utterly take from him, nor allow My faithfulness to fail. My covenant I will not break, Nor alter the word that has gone out of My lips. Once I have sworn by My holiness; I will not lie to David: His seed will endure forever, and his throne as the sun before me.” As Paul said of this same God, “If we are faithless, He remains faithful; He cannot deny Himself” (2 Tim. 2:13). God has not given them back the land yet, but will in the future when the remnant returns to Him (e.g., see Gen. 13:17 and Deut. 30:16-20).

In brief, Gregg’s attempt to rescue the partial preterist position he shares with Hank Hanegraaff is a failure. It rests upon a methodologically unorthodox way of interpreting Scripture. If this same method were used on the Gospel narratives of the resurrection of Christ, the preterist would also be theologically unorthodox. Thus, while partial preterism itself is not heretical, its hermeneutic is unorthodox, and if applied consistently, would lead to heresy, as indeed it does in full preterism.

Full article

Dr. Norman L. Geisler in this article gives his take on the “Evangelical Manifesto” and also gives the title of a couple of his books that give a full-fledged response to the Manifesto. It is interesting that those that wrote the Manifesto downplay certain critical Christian fundamentals of our faith but what else should we expect from those on the Evangelical Christian Left that are now compromising with the world and acting like Christianity was just another world religion to help socialize the world.

Christian Worldview Network – Brannon Howse – An Evaluation of the “Evangelical Manifesto”

Moses is dead, and there are many candidates vying for Joshua’s position. Or, to put it another way. Jerry Falwell is gone. Adrian Rogers is also with his Maker. D. James Kennedy has gone to his reward, Pat Robertson’s political aspirations failed, as has much of his influence. James Dobson officially retired as president of Focus on the Family and, despite his widespread pro-family influence, has never really had much of a taste for political activism. The former NAE president has fallen from grace, and the chair of evangelical leadership is wide open!
Enter, the Evangelical left with a handful of self-appointed leaders who propose a “Manifesto” which could be described as “the Evangelical Left strikes back.” Released on May 7, 2008 from the Nation’s Capitol, Fuller Seminary’s Richard Mouw, Os Guiness, Christianity Today’s David Neff, and others led the attempt to redefine Evangelicalism with a distinctive list to the left.

But beneath the polished rhetoric and catchy phrases, there lurks a deep danger, both in what they affirm and in what they do not affirm. First, a look at what they do not include in their admittedly “mere Christianity.” Nothing is said about the infallibility and inerrancy of the Bible, the very basis for all evangelical truth. Instead, we hear about the Bible’s as an undefined “supreme authority” or “final rule of faith and practice” which to neo-evangelicals and neo-orthodox means it is not without errors in history and science.

As leaders from the evangelical right have faded, a handful of the evangelical left have made their move to fill the vacuum. However, they do not rightfully represent historic evangelicalism, nor do they have an objective moral basis for meeting the needs of our culture. So, we should take them at their word when they say, “We speak for ourselves” and “no one speaks for all Evangelicals.” And, hopefully, few will listen to their voice as that of full-fledged and genuine Evangelicalism.

Full article

Dr. Norman L. Geisler gives his expert arguments for premillennialism. Each reason below is fully explained in the full article.

Christian Worldview Network – Brannon Howse – Why Hold to a Pre-Mill View?

Why Hold to a Pre-Mill View?By Norman L. Geisler

Arguments for Premillennialism

There are many arguments for premillennialism and several are noteworthy.

Unless Premillennialism is True, God Lost the Battle in History
Unless Premillennialism is True, History Has no End
Only Premillennialism Employs a Consistent Hermeneutic
Premillennialism Adds Urgency to Evangelism
Premillennial Immenency Adds an Incentive for Holiness

Conclusion

Our spiritual forefathers did not put this in our doctrinal statement because they thought it was unimportant. To the contrary, premillennialism is based on a hermeneutical (interpretation) fundamental. The literal historical/grammatical fundamental on which it is based underlies all the salvation fundamentals of the Faith. Giving it up belies to serious problems for the future of the church. First, we are giving up the very basis for all the fundamental Christian doctrines. Second, there is the underlying tendency to sacrifice important doctrines for the sake of unity, fraternity, or multiplicity (growth). Yielding to this tendency set a bad precedent for future deviation on even more important issues. One final thought. It is of more than passing significance to note that few, if any, evangelical groups slide from premillennialism to liberalism. However, this is not true of non-premillennial views. It is not accidental that premillennialism is a safeguard against liberalism for some of the reasons already given.

Full article

It is nice to see Todd Strandberg and Terry James Rapture Ready website make the national media again. All the exposure helps to get the message out about Bible prophecy and that we are very near the prophetic end times on earth. If you have not visited the site I highly recommend it. For years RaptureReady has been the top Bible prophecy website in the world and I still very much appreciate the link they have up to my website.

Rapture: Distress about wars and the world economy feed apocalyptic warnings – Salt Lake Tribune

Strandberg, founder and editor of raptureready.com, the largest Christian prophecy site on the Internet, spends his days linking current events with biblical passages. He created a Rapture Index, modeled after the Dow Jones Industrial Average, which consists of 45 categories of prophetic indicators from the occult to inflation and the crime rate. Each is assigned a value of one to five depending on the level of activity in that category. The numbers are adjusted weekly, and the higher the number, the faster the world is moving toward its end. Just before the time known as the Great Tribulation, some believe there will be a “Rapture,” where Christ takes the righteous to heaven without their tasting death.
In recent weeks, traffic on Rapture Ready site spiked to 50,000 hits a day.

In his 22 years working on Rapture Ready, Strandberg has seen an “avalanche” of anti-Christ suggestions, including Tony Blair and Bill Clinton. Obama doesn’t fit the bill, he says, but he could be a type of “anti-Christ,” which simply means too many people see him as a replacement for Jesus.
Still, Strandberg believes the end is at hand and Jesus’ Second Coming will surprise everyone, coming as “a thief in the night,” according to the Bible, but close observers will at least know “the season.”
He points to tensions between Israel and Iran, Russia’s invasion of Georgia, and the possibility of global depression as some of the top indicators.
“We are one big event from triggering a cascade that will not stop,” he says. “There are so many indicators that are active. It’s like an overhang of snow on a mountain top. Cracks are forming on the ridge and once the ridge breaks free, it will tumble down the mountain and nothing can stop it.”

full article

I ran across a couple of good articles on the postmodern emergent church movement. First Norman L. Geisler wrote a really brilliant article on this movement. This is probably the most informative article about the emergent movement that I have ever seen

Below is just the first paragraph of the article but the whole article is packed with Geisler’s brilliant logical way of presenting information

There is one key influence on the Emergent Church movement—postmodernism. While not all Emegents accept all premises of post-modernism, nonetheless, they all breathe the same air. Post modernism embraces the following characteristics: 1) The “Death of God”—Atheism; 2) The death of objective truth—Relativism; 3) The death of exclusive truth—Pluralism; 4) Death of objective meaning—Conventionalism; 5) The death of thinking (logic)—Anti-Foundationalism; 6) The death of objective interpretation—Deconstructionism, and 7) the death of objective values—Subjectivism.
From post-modernism Emergents devise the following key ideas: They consider themselves: 1)Post-Protestant; 2)Post-Orthodox; 3)Post-Denominational; 4)Post-Doctrinal; 5) Post-Individual; 6) Post-Foundational; 7) Post-Creedal; 8 )
Post-Rational, and 8)Post-Absolute. It is noteworthy that “post” is a euphemism for “anti.” So, in reality they are against all these things and more.
Full article

Next Jan Markel wrote an article Will the Emergent Church submerge yours. Jan’s article puts together some bullet statements on the warning signs of a church that is buying into the Emergent movement. If your seeing them you need to do what you can to change the postmodern thinking and if you cannot get leaders in your church to stay on solid ground you may have to relocate.

I think one key point is what they believe about Bible prophecy if they think it all happened in the past and the Church is Israel and that you need to help bring in a socialistic kingdom on earth here and now, you probably are in a very liberal mainline Church or your in a postmodern emergent church or both.

Dr. David Reagan gives a very good summery of the prophecies to Israel and the Jews in end time bible prophecy. How anyone can read works like his article or know these scriptures for themselves and still believe that God is through with Israel or that the prophecies to Israel are now fulfilled by the Church is totally beyond me. Dr. Reagan also gives a list of future promises to the Church.

Christian Worldview Network – Brannon Howse – A Summary Of The Jews In End Time Bible Prophecy

A Summary Of The Jews In End Time Bible Prophecy

By Dr. David R. Reagan

We are living in exciting times when we can witness Bible prophecy being fulfilled before our very eyes. Many of these prophecies relate to the Jewish people and their nation. Below is a summary of prophecies concerning the Jews that are currently being fulfilled and those that are yet to be fulfilled.

Full Article

“The Last patriot” is a new book that points out that their are major known discrepancies in manuscripts of the Quran. That takes a lot of guts. Brad Thor may be one of the last patriots standing today. I think Muslims will eventually re-examine their faith with a modern, 21st century perspective, as are other religions. It will probably occur after a great war with Islamic fundamentalism. It will lead to a pluralist one world religion. But that will not turn out to be good either, because contrary to postmodern thinking there really is only one truth. That truth is found in the Bible when properly translated.

Brad Thor the new Salman Rushdie?

The author of the best-selling new thriller, “The Last Patriot,” says his life already has been threatened for contending the Muslim holy book contains errors and is not based on the last revelations of Muhammad.

“What they found when they started studying them was, uh-oh, there’s stuff in here that doesn’t look like the Quran today,” he explained, “and we’ve gone around telling everybody that the Quran is perfect and now here are these discrepancies.”

More than 1.5 billion Muslims worldwide believe their holy book is the perfect, inviolate word of God – an exact word-for-word, perfect copy of the original book as it exists in Paradise and just as it was transmitted, without a single error, by Allah to the Prophet Muhammad through the Angel Gabriel.

But Thor’s main character in “Patriot” uncovers aberrations that differ from Islamic dogma, meaning the case could finally be made that the Quran needed to be re-examined in a historical framework.

Thor says “Islam is getting a free pass,” and he has the right to write anything he wants to write and Muslims have the “right not to read it.”

He adds that he’s tired of the chattering class in Washington glossing over the violent nature of Islam, sugarcoating it as a “religion of peace” that doesn’t need to be reformed.

“I hear all the time about Islam being a religion of peace and I thought, wow, that’s weird, there’s so much violence in there,” he explained in a recent interview with Beck. “And the more I study the Quran, the more I realize that it’s unlike the Bible.”

This is a pretty good survey of what American’s believe today about religion. The lettuce believe whatever does not clash with Oprah’s fruit salad generation.

Survey: More have dropped dogma for spirituality in U.S. – USATODAY.com

Religion today in the USA is a salad bar where people heap on upbeat beliefs they like and often leave the veggies — like strict doctrines — behind.

There are so many ways of seeing God, public policy expert Barry Kosmin says, that “the highest authority is now the lowest common denominator.”

“Americans believe in everything. It’s a spiritual salad bar,” says Rice University sociologist Michael Lindsay. Rather than religious leaders setting the cultural agenda, today, it’s Oprah Winfrey, he says.

“After the attack on Pearl Harbor, the national memorial service was at Washington’s National Cathedral, conducted by Episcopal clergy. After the 9/11 attack, Oprah organized the official memorial service at Yankee Stadium, and while clergy participated, she was the master of ceremonies.

“The impact of Oprah is seen throughout this survey. She uses the language of Bible and Christian traditions and yet includes other traditions to create a hodgepodge personalized faith. Exclusivism (one religion has the absolute and exclusive truth) has gotten a bad name in America today,” he says.

Political science professor Alan Wolfe, director of the Boise Center for American and Public Life at Boston University, says many people, despite their religious claims, “have no command of theology, doctrine or history, so it’s an empty religiosity.”

Cal Thomas has it right. You have denied the faith if you think there are other paths to God besides through Jesus Christ. So are you a Christian or just a great pretender? If you find yourself believing there are many paths to God you really should remove yourself from the Christian faith and quit corrupting our churches. Also, evangelical pastors and leaders need to take heed and teach the gospel often because 60 percent who attend evangelical churches have not heard it or understood it. Not to mention that in the mainline churches it is 83 percent. So is it any wonder that these “Christians” pick politicians who actually oppose the faith.

Do They Think Jesus Was a Liar? « FOX Forum « FOXNews.com

If there are many paths to heaven, Jesus suffered and died for nothing. He could have stayed in heaven, sent down a book of sayings and avoided crucifixion. Orthodox Christians have always believed – and their Bible teaches them — there is only one path to heaven and it is through Jesus Christ and him alone. One can believe whatever one wishes, but you can’t be considered a Christian without believing in this fundamental doctrine.

Christian churches have a lot of work to do in addressing biblical illiteracy, ignorance and, yes, heresy, in their midst. They might want to pay more attention to fixing what’s gone wrong among their members before expending too much energy on politics and politicians.

It makes no sense for the Catholic Church to retain the demonic “Father” Pleger as a priest. Priests of God do not teach hate. But there is a much deeper issue than “Father” Pleger here.

We have now heard three leaders speak from that pulpit all preaching heretical hateful Black Liberation Theology. The whole congregation was whipped in a frenzy by “Father” Pleger obviously they were in full approval of his very hateful message.

Obama can say what this church teaches is not his views but then why would he continue to attend a church that produces and promotes leaders in Black Liberation Theology? It is not just Jeremiah Wright that is rotten in this church it is the whole congregation that is rotten. If any of those attending this church had one ounce of Christian discernment they would have left many years ago. All who attend there now could only be classified as racial bigots.

So now should the American people elect a man to President who attends a bigoted church and will not even take a stand against the evils being spouted from it by departing from it?

Should we make such a flawed man President so he can bring his well known Far Left Marxist all ways theology the focus for America for the next four years? Should we elect Obama so we can listen to his wife’s hatred toward America from the White House? Will that bring the nation to the unity that Obama claims he will bring to American?

If you want to see total disaster and disunity come to America go ahead and vote for Obama and people like him to positions of power in the government. If you do you will have yourself to blame when socialism brings economic disaster and black racism gives black people more excuses for their continued ” whitey owes me a living” immorality.

America is at a tipping point and if it tips toward where these people are planning to go it will not be pretty when America wakes up. The backlash could look like a civil war. Much of the Christian heartland of America is simply not going to put up with where the Far Left godless want to take America.

American Thinker Blog: The demonic Father Pfleger

Father Pfleger sounds like Jeremiah Wright on a really bad acid trip. He is hateful; he is sadistically gleeful; he preaches a vicious anti-White race hatred; and he has the congregation screaming with joy. This is a sight and sound to behold, something out of the worst parts of the Middle Ages, with priests demagoguing their congregations to go out and kill Jews, or Protestant infidels, Catholics, or Orthodox Christians. But this is right here in America, brough to you by the compassion of Black Liberation Theology.

Father Pfleger could be faking his race-baiting, taking as his “prophetic preaching” model his good friend the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. No doubt his act is thoroughly rehearsed. But that only makes his race-baiting worse, a premeditated act of evil that will end up killing human beings, as the message spreads that it’s OK to prey on Whitey.

Does the Catholic Church recognize any responsibility to deal with Father Pfleger? Do the words of Vatican II mean anything in practice? The civil authority in America is committed to free speech, including free hate speech. It should not do anything. But the Church does not have to implicitly validate Father Pfleger’s message by continuing his ordination. It brings even more scandal upon the Church, which is already reeling.

As for Senator Barack Obama, it does bring his history and political backers into sharper and sharper focus, doesn’t it?