Uncategorized

Earthly Kings Possessed by Satan?

by

Psalm 2:1-5
Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?  2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his anointed, saying,  3 Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. 4 He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision. 5 Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.

Introduction by John McGlone  Nov 22, 2018

    On this thanksgiving day I want to express that I am so thankful for Jesus Christ who saved me from His judgment, my life of sin, so that I may bring Him all the glory He so richly deserves.  I am also thankful for our family, our friends, and even our enemies whom God will use to teach us many things in the years to come.

I have prayed for many years to get a really good historical handle on eschatology which was cogent and could be understood by scholar and layman alike.  I think I have finally stumbled across something which really makes good sense and helps to explain a nagging philosophical problem I had with many descriptions of Satan from the Bible.  These characterizations of the great dragon in Scripture describe earthly kings which transition into the prince of the power of the air, Satan.   I will let the writing speak for itself as it is very well done and very insightful.  This volume by Br. Peter Goodgame is the seventh in the series.  I will warn you that volume one was very dry to me personally and I almost gave up on the read.  In fact, I would recommend you start with volume seven and then head back to the beginning.

by Peter Goodgame

The Seven Kings of Satan

We will now attempt to identify the Seven Kings of Satan as they have appeared throughout history. That they are Satanic is evident by the fact that they are initially presented as the seven heads of the dragon in Revelation 12, who is identified as Satan the “serpent of old” in verse nine. They can also be identified by their antagonistic relationship to the God of Israel because in Revelation 13:2 they are said to have “blasphemous names.” They serve Satan and they oppose God and the people who serve Him.

In Daniel 12:1 there is a passage that may help to explain the time frame that we are dealing with in our search for these seven kings. The passage refers to the “time of distress” associated with the apocalypse and the end of the age. Once again, it is an angel that gives Daniel the message, and he says,

“There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then.”

The beginning of nations, as we explained in Part Six, was associated with the Tower of Babel event. It was a separation based on language, but it also involved the handing over of these seventy nations into the hands of the seventy top-ranking fallen angels. This event marked a spiritual transition, and the earth and its nations were given into the spiritual authority of the fallen angels and to Satan their most powerful leader. Daniel was told that the Apocalypse would be the most terrible time of distress from “the beginning of nations” until the end of the Age. In Matthew 24:21 Jesus Himself makes a similar statement,

“For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again.”

The word that is translated as “world” is the Greek word kosmos. In the Gospel of John (12:31-32) after predicting His own death, Jesus explained what the “end of the world” would involve: “Now is the time for judgment on this world (kosmos); now the prince of this world (kosmos) will be driven out. But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.” In John 16:11 Jesus looked forward to the effects of His death and explained that “the prince of this kosmos now stands condemned.”

The disciples wondered about the events that would happen at the time of the end and they asked Jesus (Matthew 24:3), “Tell us, when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and the end of the age (Aion)?” After His death and resurrection Jesus ascended into heaven, leaving His disciples with encouraging words (Matthew 28:30), “And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age (Aion).” Concerning the nature of this present Aion, or Age, the Apostle Paul refers to Satan as the “God of this Aion” (2 Corinthians 4:4), saying that he is the deceiver that keeps unbelievers from accepting the Gospel.

This current Age is the Age during which the fallen angels (the Kosmokrators), led by Satan their prince, rule over a fallen earth that is inhabited by fallen human beings. It began as a result of the Tower of Babel and it will end with the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, who will either reward or punish all human beings and the fallen angels, and cleanse and renovate the earth.

Nimrod

This Age began because of the conquests and rebellious actions of Nimrod, and so it makes perfect sense to conclude that Nimrod should be identified as the very first of Satan’s seven kings. He ruthlessly conquered the known world, he attempted to rebuild the city of Eridu, the pre-flood capital of the god Enki, and he also began to build the Tower of Babel as a means to resist the divine command to spread out and “fill the earth.” He is the first of the seven kings, and he will also be the last to appear when he comes again and rules as the eighth king. The Antichrist is the “first and the last” to rule over this particular fallen Age, but Jesus Christ is the “First and the Last” of all Creation, and the Ruler of all Ages to come.

The first of Satan’s seven kings is the most important to identify, but thankfully he is also the easiest to identify. We will continue identifying the other six kings, but with them the facts are not always so clear and one or two of the names may be based on conjecture and logical speculation. Our final list will be complete but it may not be 100% accurate, because much more scholarship on this subject can and should be done.

 

 

 

 

Pharaoh of Egypt

The second king is most likely either the king of Egypt that attempted to kill all male Hebrew children born at the time of the birth of Moses, or perhaps rather the Pharaoh who resisted Moses at the time of the Exodus who was drowned in the Red Sea. An Egyptian identity for the second king makes sense because it was in the land of Egypt that Satan was able to perfect his own religion and create his most lasting empire, and it was in Egypt where the body of Nimrod, known to the Egyptians as Osiris, was laid to rest.

Biblical scholars have explored the idea that the Ten Plagues that forced Pharaoh to release the Hebrews were structured as Divine repudiations of the ten primary Egyptian gods, with the final plague of the death of the first-born aimed against the cult of Osiris, the cult most-closely associated with the Egyptian monarchy itself. This possibility is supported by the fact that Osiris is repeatedly identified as the “first-born son of Geb” throughout the Egyptian Pyramid Texts. In Egyptian myth the god Geb was understood to represent the earth, which is odd because in every other pagan culture the earth is worshiped in feminine form as the Mother Goddess. In Plutarch’s retelling of the legend of Isis and Osiris Plutarch identifies Geb as Kronos, who was in turn understood by classical scholars to be the Greek form of the Mesopotamian god Enki, whose name meant “Lord of the Earth.”

The Greek historian Diodorus Siculus (c.90-30 BC) gives an account of pillars that were found in Arabia that were erected as memorials to Isis and Osiris. He writes that the pillar of Osiris contained the following inscription (which also provides evidence that Osiris was the legendary conqueror Nimrod):

“My father is Kronos, the youngest of all the gods.
I am Osiris the king, who led my army all over the earth
to the uninhabited districts of India and those that lie to the North,
to the source of the river Ister, yea, everywhere, even to the Ocean.
I am the eldest son of Kronos. 
Child of the noble and beautiful egg, I was born an offspring congenital with day.
No place is there in the whole world, whereinto I have not been,
conferring on all the benefits whereof I have been the inventor.” [1]

It is very ironic then, that it was from Egypt that the small and insignificant tribe of the twelve sons of Jacob was able to emerge as the Nation of Israel, symbolized in Revelation as the Woman who gave birth to the first-born Son of the Creator of the universe, through whom the world has been redeemed.


Sennacherib of Assyria

The third Satanic king on our list, who must certainly be included somewhere, is King Sennacherib of Assyria. The story of his campaign against King Hezekiah and against Jerusalem is given in 2 Kings 18-19, 2 Chronicles 32, and Isaiah 36-37. It is an amazing story of the effectiveness of prayer and of the mercy, justice and power of God. When King Hezekiah resisted Sennacherib’s demands Sennacherib responded through his messengers with ridicule and blasphemy against the God of Israel. King Hezekiah responded to Sennacherib’s insults by going to the Temple to pray, and after hearing Hezekiah’s prayers God responded through the prophet Isaiah. The story unfolds in Isaiah 37:

“Then Isaiah son of Amoz sent a message to Hezekiah: This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: ‘Because you have prayed to me concerning Sennacherib king of Assyria,’ this is the word the LORD has spoken against him:
‘The Virgin Daughter of Zion despises and mocks you. The Daughter of Jerusalem tosses her head as you flee. Who is it you have insulted and blasphemed? Against whom have you raised your voice and lifted your eyes in pride? Against the Holy One of Israel! By your messengers you have heaped insults on the Lord. And you have said, ‘With my many chariots I have ascended the heights of the mountains, the utmost heights of Lebanon. I have cut down its tallest cedars, the choicest of its pines. I have reached its remotest heights, the finest of its forests…’
But I know where you stay and when you come and go and how you rage against me. Because you rage against me and because your insolence has reached my ears, I will put my hook in your nose and my bit in your mouth, and I will make you return by the way you came…’
Therefore this is what the LORD says concerning the king of Assyria:
‘He will not enter this city or shoot an arrow here. He will not come before it with shield or build a siege ramp against it. By the way that he came he will return; he will not enter this city,’ declares the LORD. ‘I will defend this city and save it, for my sake and for the sake of David my servant!’
Then the angel of the LORD went out and put to death a hundred and eighty-five thousand men in the Assyrian camp. When the people got up the next morning—there were all the dead bodies. So Sennacherib king of Assyria broke camp and withdrew. He returned to Nineveh and stayed there.”

King Sennacherib returned to Ninevah where he went to the temple of the god Nisroch to find out what had gone wrong. While he was worshiping there he was murdered in cold blood by two of his own sons. The possibility that Sennacherib was one of Satan’s seven kings is supported by Isaiah’s description of him in chapter fourteen:

“On the day the LORD gives you relief from suffering and turmoil and cruel bondage, you will take up this taunt against the king of Babylon:
‘How the oppressor has come to an end! How his fury has ended! The LORD has broken the rod of the wicked, the scepter of the rulers, which in anger struck down peoples with unceasing blows, and in fury subdued nations with relentless aggression. All the lands are at rest and at peace; they break into singing. Even the pine trees and the cedars of Lebanon exult over you and say, “Now that you have been laid low, no woodsman comes to cut us down.” 
The grave below is all astir to meet you at your coming; it rouses the spirits of the departed to greet you—all those who were leaders in the world; it makes them rise from their thrones—all those who were kings over the nations. They will all respond, they will say to you, “You also have become weak, as we are; you have become like us.”
All your pomp has been brought down to the grave, along with the noise of your harps; maggots are spread out beneath you and worms cover you. How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations! You said in your heart,
“I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of the sacred mountain. I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.” 
But you are brought down to the grave, to the depths of the pit.” (Isaiah 14:3-15)

Biblical scholars agree that this passage refers to Sennacherib who conquered and ruled Babylon. This conclusion is supported by the statement of Sennacherib in Isaiah 37 in which he boasts of plundering the forests of Lebanon, which connects with the taunts against Sennacherib in Isaiah 14 from those very same forests. However the most provocative portion of Isaiah 14 is where the text transitions seamlessly from a description of the human king to a description of a figure that can only be Satan, or Lucifer, as some texts say. This transition only makes sense once it is understood that Satan himself became manifested on earth through Sennacherib. In other words, Sennacherib was possessed by Satan and should be viewed as one of the seven kings of Satan.


Ithobaal II of Tyre

The fourth king of Satan is the King of Tyre, the powerful Phoenician city-state that dominated trade in the Mediterranean. This king, who was most likely Ithobaal II, was accused of pride and blasphemy by the prophet Ezekiel:

“The word of the LORD came to me: “Son of man, say to the ruler of Tyre, This is what the Sovereign LORD says: ‘In the pride of your heart you say, “I am a god; I sit on the throne of a god in the heart of the seas.” But you are a man and not a god, though you think you are as wise as a god…
Therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says: ‘Because you think you are wise, as wise as a god, I am going to bring foreigners against you, the most ruthless of nations; they will draw their swords against your beauty and wisdom and pierce your shining splendor…
Will you then say, “I am a god,” in the presence of those who kill you? You will be but a man, not a god, in the hands of those who slay you. You will die the death of the uncircumcised at the hands of foreigners. I have spoken, declares the Sovereign LORD.’
‘…This is what the Sovereign LORD says: You were the model of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. You were in Eden, the garden of God… You were anointed as a guardian cherub, for so I ordained you. You were on the holy mount of God; you walked among the fiery stones. You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created till wickedness was found in you. Through your widespread trade you were filled with violence, and you sinned. So I drove you in disgrace from the mount of God, and I expelled you, O guardian cherub, from among the fiery stones. Your heart became proud on account of your beauty, and you corrupted your wisdom because of your splendor. So I threw you to the earth; I made a spectacle of you before kings. 
By your many sins and dishonest trade you have desecrated your sanctuaries. So I made a fire come out from you, and it consumed you, and I reduced you to ashes on the ground in the sight of all who were watching. All the nations who knew you are appalled at you; you have come to a horrible end and will be no more.'” (Ezekiel 28:1-19)

This passage is very similar to Isaiah’s description of Sennacherib in that it also contains a description of a human king that transitions into a description of Satan, who was the perfectly-created guardian angel of the Garden of Eden, who fell from his exalted position because of his pride. Like the case of Sennacherib, these references imply that Ithobaal II, the King of Tyre, was possessed and controlled by Satan.

Tyre’s relationship with Israel was friendly under King Hiram during the reign of Solomon, but after that it degenerated quickly. The prophet Amos accused Tyre of taking Israelites as slaves and selling them to neighboring kingdoms, and of breaking their “covenant of brotherhood” (Amos 1:9-10). The relationship finally reached its lowest point during the time of Ezekiel who predicted God’s judgment upon Tyre (Ezekiel 26-28), which was fulfilled by the conquests of Nebuchadnezzar and Alexander the Great. Ithobaal II was eventually executed by Nebuchadnezzar after being captured and brought to Babylon.

Antiochus IV Epiphanes

The fifth of Satan’s seven kings can only be King Antiochus IV Epiphanes. His career was predicted in Daniel 11:21-35, where he is described as a contemptible and vile person, scheming and deceitful, psychotic and possibly insane, who would focus his rage against the Jews, against God, and against Jerusalem and the holy temple.

Antiochus obtained his throne in Syria by conspiring against the rightful heir and by flattering powerful allies. After he took power he waged war against Ptolemy VI of Egypt, and after striking a treaty with Ptolemy he brought his army into Palestine. He received word that the Jews were rejoicing because of false reports of his death, so he attacked Jerusalem, killing 40,000 and capturing another 40,000 as slaves. He reinstalled his puppet Menelaus as the Jewish high priest who continued Antiochus’ plan to Hellenize the Jews. After another unsuccessful campaign into Egypt Antiochus sent 22,000 troops into Jerusalem to aid Menelaus and to eradicate traditional Jewish worship. His forces attacked Jerusalem on the Sabbath and massacred many worshipers. Antiochus then entered the Temple and consecrated it to Jupiter (Zeus), setting up an idol and sacrificing a pig on the altar. He passed a law that outlawed the Jewish religion, and he killed and tortured the violators that were caught.

The career of Antiochus is typical of Satan’s kings. He was one of the greatest blasphemers against the God of Israel, and he minted coins that pictured himself with the inscription “Antiochus the Great, God Manifest.” He committed the greatest outrage possible against the Lord when he violated His sanctuary and erected a pagan idol within, followed by the sacrifice of an unclean beast on the altar. These acts were an “abomination” against the Lord that will be matched by the Antichrist when he sets up the “abomination of desolation” predicted by Jesus (Matthew 24:15), Paul (2 Thessalonians 2), and Revelation 13. Daniel’s description of Antiochus is similar to those given by Isaiah and Ezekiel for Sennacherib and Ithobaal II, because once again we find a passage that transitions from descriptions of the king into descriptions of another figure. In the case of Daniel, the descriptions of Antiochus lead directly into prophecies of the end-times Antichrist, beginning with Daniel 11:36.

The end came for Antiochus after his retinue was ambushed while plundering the temple of a goddess in Persia. Some accounts say that he was violently slain, while others say he died of a stomach ailment while in retreat. Given the trend followed by these kings it seems more likely that he died violently. In any case Antiochus must certainly be counted as one of Satan’s seven kings, and he completes our list of the first five that were predicted in Revelation 17:10 to “have fallen” at the time that the vision of Revelation was received.

Nero Caesar

The sixth was a king that ruled at the very same time that John’s vision was received. To identify this king we must enter the scholarly debate on when exactly the book of Revelation was written. The modern consensus is that it was written near the end of the first century around 95 AD, but an older tradition holds that it was written around 64-68 AD during the Roman reign of the infamous Nero Caesar. The reasons for accepting such an early date for the writing of Revelation are numerous:

– The Church Father Clement of Alexandria asserted that all revelation ceased under Nero’s reign.
– The Muratorian canon (c. 170 AD) has John completing Revelation before Paul had written to seven different churches (Paul finished these writings in 67-68 AD).
– The Church Father Tertullian placed John’s banishment to Patmos at the same time as Peter and Paul’s martyrdom (67-68 AD).
– The Church Father Epiphanius (315-403 AD) twice stated that Revelation was written under Nero.
– The Syriac version of Revelation (6th century AD) begins with the heading, “written in Patmos, whither John was sent by Nero Caesar.”
– The Byzantine scholar Arethas, from the 9th century wrote, “When the Evangelist received these oracles, the destruction in which the Jews were involved was not yet inflicted by the Romans [70 AD].” [2]

The early date for the writing of Revelation is used by some scholars to support the absurd Preterist interpretation of Bible prophecy. An early date for the book of Revelation may support Preterist arguments, but it hardly proves them, and it can work just as well with literal and futurist interpretations of Revelation.

When we examine the life of Nero we find all of the elements necessary to include him on the list of Satan’s seven kings, and we uncover a tale of sex, violence, scandal and murder, that far exceeds anything an HBO script-writer could imagine.

Nero was born in 37 AD. His father was a wealthy Roman citizen and his mother, Agrippina, was the sister of the Emperor Caligula. Nero’s father died when he was three and at this time, out of a very reasonable fear of his sister, Caligula confiscated their wealth and banished Nero and Agrippina to a tiny island. After Caligula died and Claudius became Emperor of Rome Nero and his mother were freed and Agrippina quickly married another wealthy Roman, who died shortly thereafter, leaving another fortune to Agrippina. After Emperor Claudius executed his wife for scolding him in public he fell under the spell of Agrippina, whom he married and made Empress of Rome in 48 AD, which he lived (or rather died) to regret.

After becoming Empress, Agrippina manipulated Claudius into making Nero his legal heir, against the claims of his own son Britannicus. Nero’s position as heir to the throne was solidified when he married Octavia, the Emperor’s daughter (Nero’s legal sister). From this point the days of Claudius were numbered, and he died by assassination in 54 AD, from poisoning, which made Nero the Emperor of Rome.

As a young man Nero was tutored by the homosexual philosopher Seneca, who was actually one of the more rational Roman thinkers of his day. In the first few years of Nero’s reign it was Seneca who actually controlled the affairs of the Empire and he did an adequate job, despite the fact that he became a hated enemy of Agrippina. This time, however, the game was up for Agrippina, and Nero had his own mother executed in 59 AD. However, the stress in dealing with Nero became too much for Seneca, who retired as Nero’s advisor in 62 AD. From that point on the affairs of the Empire steadily degenerated. Nero went through a string of male and female lovers and focused on pursuing his entertainment career, imagining himself to be a great singer, poet and actor.

In 64 AD Nero moved forward on a plan to rebuild a section of the old city of Rome, and to rename it Neronia in honor of himself. A fire was set to aid in the demolition and to remove the unwanted occupants, but this fire soon raged out of control, destroying three and damaging seven of Rome’s fourteen districts. The fire was then blamed on the community of Christians that lived in Rome, and Nero found it convenient to vent his rage on the young sect that he passionately hated. The Roman historian Tacitus was a young eyewitness and he later recorded what happened in Book XV of his Annals,

    “Therefore, to stop the rumor [that he had set Rome on fire], he [Emperor Nero] falsely charged with guilt, and punished with the most fearful tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were [generally] hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of that name, was put to death as a criminal by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea, in the reign of Tiberius, but the pernicious superstition – repressed for a time, broke out yet again, not only through Judea, – where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also, whither all things horrible and disgraceful flow from all quarters, as to a common receptacle, and where they are encouraged. Accordingly first those were arrested who confessed they were Christians; next on their information, a vast multitude were convicted, not so much on the charge of burning the city, as of “hating the human race.”
In their very deaths they were made the subjects of sport: for they were covered with the hides of wild beasts, and worried to death by dogs, or nailed to crosses, or set fire to, and when the day waned, burned to serve for the evening lights. Nero offered his own garden players for the spectacle, and exhibited a Circensian game, indiscriminately mingling with the common people in the dress of a charioteer, or else standing in his chariot. For this cause a feeling of compassion arose towards the sufferers, though guilty and deserving of exemplary capital punishment, because they seemed not to be cut off for the public good, but were victims of the ferocity of one man.”

Nero’s reign was unique simply for the extent of his persecution of Christians. In 67 AD he executed Peter, and he even went so far as to execute Paul, a Roman citizen. Politically, Nero’s prestige was quickly expended. In 65 AD he faced down a political conspiracy that included his former mentor Seneca, and by 68 AD Nero faced a revolt that came from his generals in the provinces and from the Roman Senate. On June 9, after being abandoned by his guards and his palace attendants, Nero retreated from the soldiers that had been sent to arrest him and he fled to his room where he committed suicide.

Nero exhibited all of the traits and characteristics of a Satanically-possessed individual. He was arrogant and prideful, as well as paranoid and psychotic, and his rage, frustration, and cruelty was directed at God and the people of God. His actions focused on short-term goals and were ultimately destructive, both for himself and for Rome. Nero’s suicidal fate was basically the same as that suffered by Pharaoh of Egypt, who brought himself into the parted Red Sea, and the same as the final king on our list who we turn to next.

Adolf Hitler

After the persecution under Emperor Nero Christianity steadily gained power in Rome, despite scattered persecution and antagonism from various Emperors. Eventually Christianity became the official religion of Rome under Constantine in the fourth century, and the faith spread from its home in the Near East to become the dominant religion in Europe, Africa, and eventually throughout the world. Since that time Christianity has been the most powerful spiritual force on the planet, and during that time, up until the twentieth century, a significant threat to that power was never manifested in the life of a single man.

The seventh and final king is explained in Revelation as the king who “has not yet come; but when he does come, he must remain for a little while.” He was a king that would appear sometime in the future, and then his authority would last for only a short time. He would be the precursor of the Antichrist himself, and he would exhibit the very same traits as previous Satanic kings, such as pride, rage, paranoia, cruelty, and a passionate hatred of God and the people of God.

This predicted figure came to power in Germany in the 1930s and he ruled over a short-lived Empire the like of which had not been seen in Europe for almost two thousand years. Here is how one biographer introduces Adolf Hitler and the Third Reich:

“Why did a civilised nation of the twentieth century abruptly revert to barbarism? How could a shabby ex-dropout, so manifestly third-rate in all matters of the intellect, have achieved such unparalleled power? Why did the Germans come to venerate Hitler as a god? Why do he and his associates, Himmler, Goering, and Goebbels, still exert a mystique that is so conspicuously absent when we study Mussolini, Ciano and Starace, or Stalin, Molotov and Beria? Why does one feel that the Third Reich stood for a radically different kind of civilisation? Most fascinating of all, what drove Hitler, what motivated him, what went on in his mind that resulted in consequences of such magnitude?” [3]

According to this biographer, the answer to what drove Hitler can be found by examining Hitler’s relationship with the occult and his involvement in the dark arts of sorcery and spirit-possession. The author is qualified to explore this relationship because he is the late Gerald Suster, a former disciple of Golden Dawn adept Israel Regardie, who was himself the personal disciple and secretary of Aleister Crowley.

Suster’s biography is entitled Hitler: Black Magician and it documents Hitler’s involvement with  groups and individuals who used pagan rituals to contact the spirit world. One of Hitler’s closest friends was a man by the name of Dietrich Eckart and he is a primary figure (according to Suster, Peter Levenda and Trevor Ravenscroft) involved in grooming Hitler for his Satanic role. Eckart’s influence over Hitler is proven by Hitler’s dedication that appears at the very end of Mein Kampf:

“And I want also to reckon among [Nazi heroes] that man, who, as one of the best, by words and by thoughts and finally by deeds, dedicated his life to the awakening of his, of our nation: Dietrich Eckart.”

Dietrich Eckart was a popular German author, poet, and editor of an influential newspaper. He was well connected with the financial world and he was a high-level initiate in the occult world. One of the greatest influences upon his life was the Gnostic mystic Helena Blavatsky, whose anti-Christian and anti-Semitic teachings came to permeate the Third Reich, as Levenda explains:

“It should be remembered that Blavatsky’s works—notably Isis Unveiled and The Secret Doctrine—appear to be the result of prodigious scholarship and were extremely convincing in their day. The rationale behind many later Nazi projects can be traced back…to ideas first popularized by Blavatsky. A caste system of races, the importance of ancient alphabets (notably the runes), the superiority of the Aryans (a white race with its origins in the Himalayas), an “initiated” version of of astrology and astronomy, the cosmic truths coded within pagan myths … all of these and more can be found both in Blavatsky and in the Nazi Party itself, specifically in the ideology of its Dark Creature, the SS. It was, after all, Blavatsky who pointed out the supreme occult significance of the swastika.” [4]

Eckart died in 1923, but for the three years previous to his death he  was “Hitler’s constant companion and the man who helped propel him into  the public spotlight.”[5] On his death bed Eckart penned the following words to a friend, which go far to explain the spiritual source of Hitler’s brief success:

“Follow Hitler! He will dance, but it is I who have called the tune. I have initiated him into the ‘Secret Doctrine,’ opened his centers in vision and given him the means to communicate with the Powers. Do not mourn for me: I shall have influenced history more than any other German.” [6]

Identifying Adolf Hitler as the seventh manifestation of the seven-headed dragon of the Apocalypse should not be viewed as questionable or controversial whatsoever. Hitler certainly exhibited the personal characteristics of a Satanically driven and possessed individual, and his passionate hatred of the Jews is very well documented. Unfortunately, the Christian Church in Germany was too timid and too deceived to challenge Hitler directly, but there were many individual Christians who did, such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who paid for his dedication to Christ with his life. Despite the fact that the organized Church in Germany worked with the Nazi Party, Hitler’s ultimate goal was to destroy Christianity. Suster offers the following quotes from Hitler to that effect:

“The religions are all alike, no matter what they call themselves. They have no future – certainly none for the Germans… Whether it is the Old Testament or the New it’s all the same old Jewish swindle… One is either a German or a Christian. You cannot be both… We need free men who feel and know that God is in themselves… The Ten Commandments have lost their validity… Our peasants have not forgotten their true religion. It still lives… The peasant will be told what the Church has destroyed for him: the whole secret knowledge of nature, of the divine, the shapeless, the daemonic… We shall wash off the Christian veneer and bring out a religion peculiar to our race…through the peasantry we shall really be able to destroy Christianity because there is in them a true religion rooted in nature and blood.” [7]

The First Seal of the Apocalypse

In the book of Revelation the breaking of the first Seal of the seven-sealed Scroll brings forth a figure that many Bible scholars have identified as the Antichrist. However, in the book Red Moon Rising – the Rapture and the Timeline of the Apocalypse the conclusion is reached that this figure is better understood as symbolizing the brief career of Satan’s seventh king—Adolf Hitler, rather than the eighth king who will “come up out of the Abyss”:

“I watched as the Lamb opened the first of the seven seals. Then I heard one of the four living creatures say in a voice like thunder, ‘Come!’ I looked, and there before me was a white horse! Its rider held a bow, and he was given a crown, and he rode out as a conqueror bent on conquest.” (Revelation 6:1-2)

This figure wears a crown, as do the seven kings of Satan in Revelation 12:3, he holds a weapon, and his primary purpose is that of conquest. The possibility that this figure represents Hitler is reinforced by what comes with the opening of the second Seal, which can easily be viewed as referring to World War II:

Excerpt from the blog Red Moon Rising.

Sodomy – A Crime for Homosexuals Only?

by

Introduction by John McGlone

I offer these thoughts based on the following article which I found and copied, but unfortunately I didn’t copy the source.  I find it to be very informative and provoking.  Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by God for sexual immorality.

2 Pet 2:6 “And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;”

Something God has been putting on my heart for quite a few years now is how does this play out for the heterosexual Christian couple?   Are we allowed to participate in anal or oral intercourse?  Is this not just as filthy as what the homosexuals do? There are a variety of responses to this of course, everything from we can do oral but not anal, or to everything goes because as long as it is inside the covenant of marriage.  Some will say that God speaking of strange flesh means non heterosexual.  So, as you examine this great article I would ask for you to seek the Holy Spirit to convince you what is pure before the God you worship.  If we play into the ideas that a little bit of this sexual leaven is okay, how is that not hypocritical before God?  Even from a natural standpoint fellatio, cunnilingus, and anilingus are not healthy as the natural bacterias that reside in those areas are not compatible in the mouth and visa versa.  For example, E. coli forms a mutualistic relationship with its host organism. … In fact, E. coli is actually an essential organism to the human body. However, there are a few that cause food poisoning and cause serious infections. But the most dangerous is O157:H7, which can be life threatening.

Jude 1:7 “Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.” 

 

Sodomy
by Unknown Source

Anal or oral intercourse between human beings, or any sexual
relations between a human being and an animal, the act of which may be punishable as a criminal offense.

The word sodomy acquired different meanings over time. Under the Common Law,
sodomy consisted of anal intercourse.Traditionally courts and statutes referred to it as “crime against nature” or as copulation
“against the order of nature.” In the United States, the term
 eventually encompassed oral sex as well as anal sex. The crime of
sodomy was classified as a felony.

Because homosexual activity involves anal and oral sex, gay men were the primary target of sodomy laws. Culturally and historically, homosexual activity was seen as unnatural
or perverse. The term sodomy refers to the homosexual activities of men in the story of the city of Sodom in the Bible. The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah because of their residents’immorality became a central part of Western attitudes toward forms of nonprocreative
sexual activity and same-sexrelations.

Beginning with Illinois in 1961, state legislatures reexamined their sodomy statutes. Twentyseven states repealed these laws, usually as a part of a general revision of the criminal code and with the recognition that heterosexuals engage in oral and anal sex. In addition, state
courts in 10 states applied state constitutional provisions to invalidate sodomy laws. As of early 2003, eight states had laws that barred
heterosexual and homosexual sodomy. Three other states barred
sodomy between homosexuals.

In Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186, 106 S. Ct. 2841, 92 L. Ed. 2d 140 (1986), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Georgiasodomy statute. Michael Hardwick was arrested and charged with sodomy for
engaging in oral sex with a consenting male adult in his home. A
police officer was let into Hardwick’s home to serve a warrant and saw the sexual act. Although the state prosecutor declined to prosecute the case, Hardwick brought suit in federal court asking that the
statute be declared unconstitutional.

On a 5-4 vote, the Court upheld the law. Writing for the majority,
 Justice Byron R.White rejected the argument that previous decisions such as the Court’s rulings on Abortion and contraception had created a right of privacy that extended to homosexual sodomy. Instead, the Court drew a sharp distinction between the previous cases,
which involved “family,marriage, or procreation,” and homosexual
 activity.

The Court also rejected the argument that there is a fundamental
 right to engage in homosexual activity. Prohibitions against sodomy were in the laws of most states since the nation’s founding. To the
argument that homosexual activity should be protected
when it occurs in the privacy of a home, White stated that “otherwise illegal conduct is not always immunized whenever it occurs in the home.” Because the claim in the case involved only homosexual sodomy, the Court expressed no opinion about the constitutionality of the statute as applied to acts of heterosexual sodomy.

The Bowers decision was severly criticized. Justice lewis powell, who voted with the majority, later stated that he hadmade a mistake in voting to affirm the law. In July 2003 the Supreme Court reversed itself on the issue of sodomy.
In Lawrencev.Texas, 539 U.S. ___, 123 S. Ct. 2472, 156 L. Ed.
2d 508, in a 6 -3 decision, the Court invalidated a Texas anti homosexual sodomy law by invoking the constitutional rights to
privacy.

Sodomy
n. anal copulation by a man inserting his penis in the anus either of
another man or a woman. If accomplished by force,without consent, or with someone incapable of consent, sodomy is a felony in all states in the same way that rape is.Homosexual (male to male) sodomy
between consenting adults has also been found a felony, but
increasingly is either decriminalized or seldom prosecuted. Sodomy with a consenting adult female is virtually never prosecuted even in
those states in which it remains on the books as a criminal offense. However, there have been a few cases, including one in Indiana, in
which a nowestranged wife insisted that a husband be charged with
 sodomy for sexual acts while they were living together. Traditionally sodomy was called “the crime against nature.” Sodomy does not
 include oral copulation or sexual acts with animals
(bestiality).  (See: rape, bestiality) 1

footnotes:
1.  http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/sodomy

 

 

Rejoicing Over the Death of the Wicked?

by

intro by John McGlone
body of work by Rey Reynoso
http://biblearchive.com/blog/

In the military that is a generally accepted saying of, “Kill ’em all, Let God sort them out!”  Now, on the face of it, this seems a very crude and base statement.  But, the reality for military members is that is and was our purpose to protect and defend, which means to kill people.  As Christians are we to rejoice in the death of the wicked as this statement seems to allude to?

After some (long) time of hunting, the American special forces have successfully found and killed Osama Bin Laden, fulfilling the mission that was implemented under the command of President Bush. As President Obama echoed the words of said president, the American resolve remained united, and an enemy was stopped. And with the preparation for the announcement came a wave of rejoicing: “Ding Dong, Osama’s dead” and “Obama got Osama” and “Thank God, Osama’s dead!”

This is not the only death that revealed people rejoicing. Adolf Hitler. Saddam Hussein. Pol Pot. As life goes on and more enemies are killed people will rejoice.

With the recent death of Billy Graham, many who opposed him and things he taught and did seemed to rejoice that he was dead and in hell.  This should never be, we will give an account for every word we’ve spoken, written, taught, etc.  We should be slow to speak and quick to listen.

James 1:19 “Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath:”

In all this, an ethical question arises: should a Christian rejoice in the death of an enemy?

by Rey Reynoso
In this article I will argue that not only is it fine for a Christian to rejoice, but also it should be done—though not done in the gruesome way that I have seen it being done.

I think it would also be helpful if the reader references my examination of an imprecatory Psalm (that is, when the Psalmist prays for the destruction of his enemies) and the post on Christian and Curses and my post on the image of God.

This article will be divided into four major sections: (1) Where Rejoicing is Wrong; (2) Where Rejoicing is Right; (3) Where Theology Meets Practice;  and (4) Conclusion. The first three major sections will each have a summarizing point to help the skimmers but I strongly encourage reading through them and the cited verses.

Where Rejoicing Is Wrong.

It must be frankly admitted that there is a reason why Christians struggle with this. We do have explicit passages that speak into this matter of rejoicing over the fall of an enemy. Proverbs 24:17-18 says:

“Do not rejoice when your enemy falls and do not let your heart be glad when he stumbles; or the Lord will see and be displeased and turn His anger away from him.”

And the passage echoes other passages. Job, for instance, sees himself as righteous because he hasn’t rejoiced at the death of his enemies (Job 31:29). Or when we see the wicked doing it, we automatically know it isn’t right (Judges 16:25; 2Sa 16:5-6; Psalm 35:13-15; 42:10;  Micah 7:8).

Indeed, the Proverbs go on to be careful with gloating at all over disaster (Proverbs 17:5) and call for the righteous to care for their enemies—to clothe them and feed them (Prov 25:21) something our Lord Himself says (Lev 19:17–18; Matt 5:44) and which Paul repeats (Rom 12:14).

This whole idea of not rejoicing for the wicked is evidenced when God says (Ezekiel 18:23; 33:11)

“As surely as I live,” declares the Lord God, “I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, oh house of Israel?”

God would rather the people repent. Peter echoes this idea when he looks back and sees that God’s forbearance is the only reason people haven’t been wiped out (2 Peter 3:9)

Section 1 Summarizing Point: Obviously we see that rejoicing over the death of “my” personal enemy is wrong. It seems to indicate that the personal tramping on an individual’s enemy is not something that is applauded. We see that although God judges the wicked, he’s not happy about it but rather patient, affording time so that they may repent.

 

Where Rejoicing Is Right.

Now there are also plenty of passages which are overlooked. For example, Proverbs 11:10 says

When the righteous prosper, the city rejoices; they shout for joy when the wicked die

The Proverb seems to be working with the antithesis of what happens when the wicked are in charge. When they’re in charge the righteous groan and are oppressed (Prov 11:11; 28:12; 29:2,11 )

Indeed, this idea isn’t foreign to the rest of Scripture either.  For example we have in Psalm 58:10 this idea of the people corporately rejoicing in the death of their enemies

The righteous will be glad when they are avenged, when they bathe their feet in the blood of the wicked.

This bathing their feet in blood (battlefield imagery) happens elsewhere in the Psalms in case you’re wondering (Psalm 68:23). And lest we get ideas that this is something that merely happens and isn’t to be applauded, we have Psalm 91:8 making it an expectation, a final shutting up of the wicked (Psalm 107:42) . All of Psalm 52 seems to be an expectation for the righteous to witness the destruction of the wicked.

In Deuteronomy 32:43 we hear this clarion call to corporately rejoice:

Rejoice, O nations, with his people, for he will avenge the blood of his servants; he will take vengeance on his enemies and make atonement for his land and people.

Indeed, Jeremiah prays for it (Jer 11:20; 20:12).

We find the early church citing Psalm 2 as part of their corporate prayers after Peter and John were beaten (Acts 4:23-30) and they request that the Lord stretches out his hand to heal, perform signs and wonders in the name of God’s servant Jesus. This is interesting, because in Psalm 2, the Lord God is laughing at the enemies of his anointed one (Psalm 2:4) because they stand there daring to revolt. When the early Church prays for God to perform wonders, it is recalling the wonders done before Pharaoh: powerful signs that prove that God, the creator of heaven and earth, is in charge (check Exodus 1 – 15 for the original story).

Upon the destruction of Babylon the Great, we see a call for the people of God, heaven itself, to rejoice over her destruction (Rev 18:20):

Rejoice over her, O heaven, and you saints and apostles and prophets, for God has pronounced judgment  against her on your behalf!

This is a call that is taken up elsewhere in the apocalypse (Rev 12:12 ) and obeyed in the Rev 19:1-4 in heaven rejoicing over the destruction of their enemy. It’s not the first time that there is singing in heaven as we see in Rev 15:3 the people singing the song of Moses.

Which immediately recalls two songs from the day of Moses. The song of Moses from Deuteronomy 32 where we have clauses of God defeating Israel’s enemies, and the Song of Moses and the Israelites from Exodus 15 where Moses and the people sing and rejoice because the Lord has destroyed their enemies. It wouldn’t be the last time where the people of Israel rejoice over the death of their enemies (Esther 8:15;  2 Kings 11:20 ).

Section 2 summarizing point: We can either conclude that there is a contradiction, a contradiction, or a contradistinction: that the joy in these passages is distinctly different from the joy in the previous section. I think that the verses here reflect that, since it isn’t an individual rejoicing against his or her personal offender, but an individual joining the corporate rejoicing against their corporate enemy. Rejoicing in this sense is apparently justified and expected. They also reflect that although God is not willing that the wicked perish, he does have the wicked perish and he expects his people to be happy about his activity.

The Wicked and Reality: Where Theology Meets Practice

I think we Protestants suffer from a very deistic view of reality, something that I applaud the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics for properly addressing. Reality, say the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics, is not a two-tier house where you have This Physical Realm and then, the second floor with That Spiritual Realm. Reality is more like one floor where the spiritual and the physical co-exist. Now, they take this to a whole ‘nuther realm by having prayer for the dead and praying to God through icons—which all is wrong—but they make a good point. A point that the Psalter repeatedly makes: justice is not merely the purview of That Spiritual Realm. The Justice of God definitively begins here, in This Physical Realm because it is all (yes, all) God’s reality.

So you’ll have Paul looking at sinful humans acting in accordance with their lusts and saying that the wrath of God is (currently) evident (Romans 1). Or you’ll have Paul warning believers to obey their governing bodybecause it is God’s instrument and it properly carries the sword of wrath against injustice (Romans 13).

And when you have judgment poured out against Israel via the Assyrians or the Babylonians, we find that God is speaking saying that this is his judgment—a foreign people attacking the Israelites like a wielded axe. These foreigners are an instrument in his hand for wrath. So you’ll have the entire book of Hosea speaking about the righteous surviving God’s wrath not so much in some future spiritual realm but right then, holding on to the Lord’s salvation.

The idea of God’s justice is something that results not only in Angels chanting, or people rejoicing, but the very physical creation yearns for it (Romans 8) and rejoices when it happens. So you’ll see a great pairing of Psalms, with one calling for the Lord to stamp down the wicked (Psalm 94), the Psalmist depending on the Lord to do it, and then (Psalm 95 and 96) the mountains and oceans rejoicing when it does happen.

Of course, a point that I made in a previous post still stands: that when imprecation is leveled against the Psalmists’ enemies, it is almost always coupled with self-examination. The reason is that justice is a thematic thread throughout the Psalter—and all of Scripture. There is a constant expectation for the balancing of scales; but when it happens in the Now, there is rejoicing: something that the section up above reflected quite concisely.

You’ll see God saying things like Ezekiel 18:32 where he doesn’t rejoice in the death of anyone—and yet he still has people die and be punished because he judges the earth (Psalm 58:11). We hear Lamentations 3:33 where he doesn’t willingly bring affliction or grief to the children of Men and we have the entire book of Job where God was willing to bring affliction to a child of men.

The problem then becomes one of applying theology to our practical situation.

Some Christians take Section 1 Passages and ignore Section 2 Passages, or worse, relegate Section 2passages to some later day. They forget that the call in the book of Proverbs, is not one so much of law (which we Christians tend to gravitate toward—check out my article on the Pearl Method) but one for wisdom.

This is why you have apparently contradictory Proverbs back to back (Prov 26:4-5) and seemingly contradictory Proverbs separated by space (Prov 11:10; 24:17). It calls for some serious wisdom on when to implement one over the other; and quite frankly it is sometimes just impossible. The nature of wisdom literature is to paint two extremes so as to reflect on the differences. It is either Lady Wisdom or Harlot Foolishness. It is either Life or it is death.

So when you read Proverbs 21:15

When justice is done, it brings joy to the righteous but terror to evildoers.

It’s not a command, nor is it something that will definitely happen, but it paints a picture of the evildoers position against justice being done.

And when you read Proverbs 24:19-20

Do not fret because of evildoers or be envious of the wicked; for there will be no future for the evil man; the lamp of the wicked will be put out

It might be read as a promise, but it should properly refer to the activity of the wise man in relation to the wave of wickedness.

Summarizing Point: Putting our theology to practice consists of a Biblical robustness that necessarily reaches beyond mere proof-texting. We can’t merely go with the romanticized internal feelings of something not feeling right, or with the rationalistic mentality of something looking like what evil people do. We need to examine a large swath of passages and see how they correlate and a wide variety of circumstances thus allowing God to say what God wishes to be said. God is supreme, and He is judge, and the Kingdoms of the World, when they do right, do right according to His will and should be applauded for that. When they do wrong, even if it is in accordance to his plans, they always are blamed because they willingly did wrong.

 

Concluding Points on the Death of the Wicked And Our Reaction

So we have passages that speak of individuals not rejoicing over the death of their personal enemies and passages speaking of corporate rejoicing over the death of their corporate enemies. We have an understanding that God judges in the future, but that we see his judgment and justice sometimes right now in the present—and that rejoicing is expected in these situations. But at this point we have to make some mental ties while avoiding extremes.

  1. One extreme is to become holier than God. Since the sinner has been punished, we should weep and pray for his soul or some such thing. It is appointed for man to die—and if his life is cut off via judgment of his instrument. It is in this world that God has cut the man off to introduce him to judgment. End of opportunity for repentance. A decision has been made. If it happens in the house of God with certain sins, suggests John, what makes us think that the God who even numbers the hairs on heads doesn’t act this way in reality? All of Scripture tells us he does (re-read the book of Daniel for instance). Trying to be holier than God is ultimately idolatrous. God judged, we must agree that He has done right, and we should be happy about that.
  2. Another extreme is to become holier than other believers in not-rejoicing. Christians are told to weep with the mourners and rejoice with the rejoicers but it also tells us to be careful when we do either. If there is a legitimate time for mourning, it is actually wrong to look at fellow tear-shedders as doing something morally wrong.  Christians should be incredibly leery of merely finding a proof-text to justify judgment of fellow believers when there is a very deep theological grid-work underlying all of it.
  3. And yet another extreme is to revel in rejoicing. We’re believers who have been called to live where we are (1 Cor 7) but that doesn’t mean that we are to be carried away in the actions and activity of the world around us. John tells us that the World System is antithetical to the Christian even while Paul tells us that the World’s Systems have been established by God. To do (horrid) things like raising a decapitated head of one’s enemies is just really missing the point of both the image of God and God’s own justice.

All of this tells me that when the enemy of the People is judged by God, cut off, and justice is served: the Lord has done right; the people should rejoice. Just like the Song of Moses rejoices in the cutting off of enemies, there is a rejoicing that should go hand in hand with justice being served. It is not to be avoided merely on the grounds that the Wicked also rejoice in wrongdoing—that just means that they have perverted something that is proper and right.

It might be a sticker situation deciding Who Are The Wicked and Who Aren’t The Wicked but that goes beyond the boundaries of it being okay or not to rejoice. I think that Hitler was obviously “The Wicked” even if the people being killed were sinners. I think that Stalin was obviously “The Wicked” even if the people being killed were unrighteous. In each of those cases, the unrighteous become “The Innocent” that can rightly bring a charge against “The Wicked” and demand a balancing of the scales. In both cases, I think it is right for the people to rejoice over the death of the wicked, but not in some horridly gruesome way (like banners with decapitated heads).

Justice, which belongs to God, triumphed and we should rejoice in that. It happened in time, right now, and that is a foretaste of a future balancing of scales where the God of heaven surely does right and every mouth is shut. We shouldn’t look down on fellow Christians that are rejoicing, but we also shouldn’t become bloodthirsty in our rejoicing.

We should, I think, act wisely in even this and realize that a robust theological foundation is much broader and all-encompassing than a mere proof-text or a blanket statement. One day, we will definitely rejoice when every knee bows, by hook or by crook, to the seated and reigning King—but in the present we can rejoice when we get a foretaste of a government that functions correctly.

Now, what about Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden: should we rejoice that justice has been served against these men? Yes, I think we should. We shouldn’t be morbidly happy about it, but we should say and believe that a government has properly used it’s God-given sword and be happy about that. We shouldn’t be morbidly happy with gruesome depictions of the dead, but we should stand with those who mourned and say “Yes, God’s arm can be seen in this bit of justice.”

Gentle Speech to All?

by

by John McGlone

The following letter is  from a discourse I had some seven years ago with my friend Ben Narsil who helps to coordinate the SOAPA conferences.  I was going through some old study notes and found his very well articulated letter.  I was in a season where I was confusing some key passages about the gentleness of the elder or pastor toward brethren, and the ministry of the open air preacher to the lost heathen.  In short, his well laid out arguments point to many differences in the offices of the preacher and the pastor.  I find that most Christian denominations will call the Pastor a preacher, when he never does that function either in or outside the building they call ‘church’.  He will teach, but very rarely do they preach the Gospel in the truest sense of the word.  Please, read carefully.  I find that this communication is very nicely done.
Thank you.
Regards in Christ,
John McGlone, Jesus Preacher Ministries

Dear Bro. McGlone,

I am sorry that you feel the way you do about our disagreement on the application of the GENTLENESS paradigm to the delivery of the message of the Will of God to sinners.  You will be missed. The SOAPA conference is like Christmas to me…it is a time when this local area is blessed with the delivery of a solid message on the Will of God and what sinners must do in response to this revelation. Frankly, I am sorry that you are allowing our disagreement to stand between you and the fellowship of the brethren at the conference as well as the conversations you might have had with local sinners on their way to Hell. We have already lost several other brethren this year due to the fact that they cannot abide with those who hold contrary views to their Calvinist beliefs. I have even lost fellowship with my brother-in-law, Bro. XXXX XXXXXX, over these very same kind of issues and it is always a religious subject matter at the heart of the disfellowship. I was told by Pastor XXXXX XXXX (Independent Baptist) after asking him to speak at another SOAPA conference that he could not do so because he found out that I was divorced and in his opinion I should not even be open air preaching…XXXXX XXXXXX will not attend a SOAPA conference ever again because we had a disagreement over the way that I handled a situation involving an individual that attended a SOAPA conference in 2007. This individual was from the Church of Christ and in XXXXX’s opinion he was a heretic and XXXXX wanted me to denounce the guy from the pulpit in the church. I refused to do so and in a moment of “gentleness” I spoke to the individual privately and took care of the matter in this fashion.  You really don’t know much about my personal background, formal Christian education or struggle with the pastors over the years. If you did then perhaps you would consider my position on the subject that you choose to speak on with a little more introspection. I don’t know how many churches you have been a member of, how long you endured at these churches, how long you have been doing this kind of ministry, how many other types of ministries you have been involved in, what other types of work you have done in the harvest field or what your formal Christian educational background is. All of these things help one to understand and contextualize the stance from which a particular man of God is delivering a message. As you know, the THEME of the conference is the LOVE of God. You decided that you wanted to deliver a piece on GENTLENESS. It was your decision to go against the flow of the overall theme and take that stance. It is a subject that has a lot to do with PASTORAL DUTIES and there is a huge gulf between the duties of a Pastor and the work of the open air preacher in Post Christian America. Obviously this is not a pastor’s conference even though, remarkably, we have some pastors that are speaking at it…again, you will be missed.

I have given your position on the application of the Gentleness paradigm to the open air preaching venue some further consideration and analysis. This is the product of that work…

I began my analysis of the Biblical meaning of “Gentle” as it was used by Paul in his Epistles to both Timothy and Titus by taking another look at 2 Tim 2:19-26

19 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let everyone that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.

20 But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour.

21 If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master’s use, and prepared unto every good work.

22  Flee also youthful lusts: but follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart.

23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.

24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,

25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;

26 And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.

I asked myself the following questions:

  1. Is Paul addressing the subject of the public proclamation of the Gospel in this passage?
  2. Is Paul setting forth “Public Preaching Tips” for Timothy and for everyone else throughout history in every setting and every situation?
  3. In verse 24, was Paul citing another portion of Scripture found in the Old or New Testament where the same subject matter is addressed?
  4. Is the “Pastoral” ministry the focus of this passage or is the “Prophetic or Preaching” ministry the focus of this passage?
  5. Are there any other parallel passages of Scripture that one can point to that might support one’s conclusion about the meaning and application this passage?
  6. Are there passages of Scripture that one can cite that contradict ones conclusion about the meaning and application of this passage?

Answers:

  1. Paul is NOT addressing the public proclamation of the Gospel, open air preaching, street preaching, campus preaching or pulpit preaching in this passage…he is addressing the problems associated with the PASTORAL ministry and especially those that were causing some of the Christians to abandon a life of holiness and pure devotion to Christ.
  2. Paul was not setting forth absolute guidelines for the public declaration of the Word of God that were to be enshrined in perpetuity as the chief cornerstone, rule of thumb and plumb line that characterizes those that preach the Word.
  3. The answer is a qualified NO. A quick check of cross references for 2 Tim 2:24 reveals that this instruction was not originally set forth in any other non-Pauline text, in fact, the only cross references are to other Pauline Epistles. This passage is cross referenced with  1 Tim 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;… Titus 1:9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers…Titus 3:2  To speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but gentle, shewing all meekness unto all men.
  4. This passage is dealing with the duties of a Shepherd of the flock or a BISHOP in the Church.
  5. YES, there are parallel passages or similar passages, 1 Tim 3:2, Titus 1:9 and Titus 3:2
  6. YES, this needs to be examined and explored in greater detail.

Paul appears to be giving the same instruction to Titus in chapter 3 verse 2 as he gave to Timothy in 2 Tim 2:24. What was the situation with Titus 3:2?

Paul starts his letter to Titus with the following statement:

1 Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God’s elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness;  2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;   3 But hath in due times manifested his word through preaching,

So, is Titus 3:2 to be understood as being directly connected with “preaching”?

The answer is NO.

Why is it NO?

Titus 3:1 holds the answer:  “Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work,”

Who is the “THEM” in verse 1? It is the congregation…the believers…this is not a text concerning the preaching of the Word in a public setting to a crowd of apostates, reprobates, homo sex perverts and lesbians…

Now we look at Titus 3:2  “To speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but gentle, shewing all meekness unto all men.”

This describes the desired characteristics of church members as they live out their daily lives at work, at home and in the church. This does not and was not intended as a description concerning the attitude and disposition of the PROPHET or PUBLIC REPROVER when he is declaring, with all authority, the Will of God to people that have come to believe that homosexuality and lesbianism are “OK” with God and that homos can be considered “saved” and on their way to heaven.

The commentary found in Family Bible Notes confirms this:

Speak evil of no man; falsely or unnecessarily. True religion makes good subjects, quiet citizens, peaceful neighbors, and renders men meek, patient, and forgiving in all the relations of life.

Matthew Henry comments in a similar way concerning the Epistle to Titus:

Of duties which concern Christians more in common, and the reasons of them, Tit 3:1-8.

This confirms my point…Paul is describing the desired characteristics or duties of common believers in their daily lives…to be peaceful neighbors and quite citizens…THIS IS NOT talking about those who are called out of the sheepfold to “lift up their voice and cry aloud, spare not, shew My people their sins”

Isa 58:1 Cry aloud, spare not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet, and shew my people their transgression, and the house of Jacob their sins.

Jamieson-Fausett-Brown commentary qualifies the meaning of “GENTLE” in this passage

gentle–towards those who attack us.

John Wesley qualifies the meaning of the word “GENTLE” as:

To be gentle-When assaulted.

Matthew Henry comments:

To be gentle; equitable and just, or candid and fair in constructions of things, not taking words or actions in the worst sense; and for peace sometimes yielding somewhat of strict right.

The New Commentary on the Whole Bible comments:

gentle—toward those who quarrel with us.

Gentleness when attacked, not taking words or actions in the worst sense, gentle towards those who quarrel with us and gentle when assaulted…WHY would a nice, quiet, peaceful Christian in the First Century Church need to worry about being attacked and assaulted in the first place? Because they were a threat to both Jewish and Pagan national security in the sense that they stood opposed to the rampant moral depravity of the Greek lifestyle (rampant homosexuality) as well as that which was promoted by both the Pharisee and Gnostic Jewish sects.

Again, this verse is not to be taken as instructional material for the open air preaching ministry. It is specifically targeted at the common characteristics to be exemplified in the daily lives of church members. Should the open air preacher or campus preacher be GENTLE when attacked or assaulted? Yes, he should! This is the meaning of the word…it does not mean that the open air preacher should lower his voice, tone down his message, soften his delivery and approach to the subject of sin and sinners and then make every effort to avoid confrontation or offense by avoiding certain or specific words that the culture of our day and age deems as “hate speech”…

What was the OBJECTIVE set forth by Paul in his opening statement to Titus in Chapter 1?

5  For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:

Clearly this letter was intended to be understood, as his letters to Timothy were, as a guide for the PASTORAL MINISTRY to which they were appointed. Paul cuts to the chase in describing the TYPE of men that Titus should ORDAIN as elders in the rest of Chapter 1 which follows:

6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.

7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;

8 But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate;

9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.

10 For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision:

11 Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre’s sake.

12 One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.

13 This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;

14 Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.

15 Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.

16 They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.

So, after Paul gives a list of characteristics that qualify one for the office of Bishop he then zeros in on vs.9 and gives the MAIN reason why these men should be chosen for this office. It’s not enough to be a “nice guy” in the local church, it’s not enough to be a lover of good men, to be sober, just, holy and temperate…you could be all these things and still not qualify for the office of a Bishop. A Bishop needs to be one that is firmly rooted in sound doctrine AND one that is not afraid to HOLD FAST the “faithful word” because one of the key aspects of the responsibility of the Bishop is to STOP THE MOUTHS of those who subvert the Truth…A Bishop must have the spine to REBUKE those who subvert the Truth.

Paul does not say: REBUKE THEM GENTLY or give them a gentle rebuke…REBUKE THEM SHARPLY!

Who is it that Paul wants Titus and or the Bishops to rebuke sharply? Verse 16…those that are mere professors of Christianity but in their works and in particular their HOMO SEX ABOMINATIONS deny Him!!! These FALSE professors of faith in Christ are the ones that need the SHARP REBUKE! And a sharp rebuke is not to be understood as a being given in a gentle manner.

Paul continues his exhortation to Titus in Chapter 2 with the following

11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,

12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;

13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.

15 These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee.

Please note that Paul does not say REBUKE WITH ALL GENTLENESS…

At this point it is incumbent upon us to consider the gravity of these admonitions in light of your opinion that the instruction given to Titus concerning gentleness should be universally applied to the attitude and disposition of those who are called to the open air preaching ministry…it is my opinion that these admonitions contradict your proposition. I would also point out what various commentaries have had to say concerning this passage in Titus:

Adam Clarke Titus 2:15

FEW portions of the New Testament excel this chapter.  It may well form the creed, system of ethics, and text book of every Christian preacher.  Does any man inquire what is the duty of a Gospel minister!  Send him to the second chapter of the Epistle to Titus for a complete answer.  There he will find what he is to believe, what he is to practise, and what he is to preach.  Even his congregation is parcelled out to him.  The old and the young of both sexes, and those who are in their employment, are considered to be the objects of his ministry; and a plan of teaching, in reference to those different descriptions of society, is laid down before him.  He finds here the doctrine which he is to preach to them, the duties which he is required to inculcate, the motives by which his exhortations are to be strengthened, and the end which both he and his people should have invariably in view.

These are truths which must be preached, which are not preached enough, and which cannot be preached too often.  Awake, pastors! and do not the work of the Lord carelessly.  Awake, people! and believe to the saving of your souls.  How shall he who is styled a minister of the Gospel, and who neither knows, feels, nor heartily inculcates these things, give an account in the great day, of himself, his calling, and his flock, to God?  And when this Gospel is preached faithfully and zealously, how shall the people escape who neglect so great a salvation?  Neglect, in such a case, is the highest contempt which man can offer to his Maker.  Surely such conduct must expect judgment without mixture of mercy.  Reader, lay this to heart. (In my opinion, this commentary reaffirms the point that this message is directed to PASTORS and their pastoral duties as a shepherd of the flock. It is not a commentary on transferring the Pastoral paradigm or template onto the function or job description of the open air preacher who is dealing with a raw, mixed multitude raised in a post-Christian American culture.)

Albert Barnes Comments (and I whole heartily agree with him on this…)

Verse 15.  And rebuke with all authority. See Barnes for 1Ti 5:1, See Barnes for 1Ti 5:20; See Barnes for 2Ti 4:2. The word authority here means command epitagh. 1Co 7:6; 16:24; 2Co 8:8; 1Ti 1:1; Tit 1:3. The sense here is, he was to do it decidedly, without ambiguity, without compromise, and without keeping any thing back. He was to state these things not as being advice or counsel, but as the requirement of God. (Note, Barnes does not say REBUKE WITH ALL GENTLENESS OF SPIRIT…and he adds that this delivery is NOT a form of ADVICE or COUNSEL…it is not done in a fashion where there is the option of negotiation or apology)

Barnes Comments on 1 Tim 5:20 Verse 20.

Them that sin. That have been proved to have committed sin–referring probably to the elders mentioned in the previous verse, but giving the direction so general a form that it might be applicable to others.   Rebuke before all. Before all the church or congregation. The word rebuke properly denotes to reprove or reprehend. It means here that there should be a public statement of the nature of the offence, and such a censure as the case demanded. It extends only to spiritual censures. (In my opinion the PUBLIC STATEMENT of the nature of the offense means that the offense will be described in detail and properly addressed from the viewpoint of the God of the Bible.)

That others also may fear. That they be kept from committing the same offence. Comp. 1Pe 2:14. The end of punishment is not the gratification of the private feelings of him who administers it, but the prevention of crime. (I agree with the point in this commentary…that articulating the end punishment for crimes against nature and natures God should cause FEAR in the hearts and minds of the sinner and that this AUTHORITATIVE and NO HOLDS BARRED approach does not include the notion of gentleness.)

Barnes Comments on 2 Tim 4:2

Rebuke. Rebuke offenders. In the New Testament the word is used to express a judgment of what is wrong, or contrary to one’s will, and hence to admonish or reprove. It implies our conviction that there is something evil, or some fault in him who is rebuked. The word in this verse rendered reprove, does not imply this, but merely that one may be in error, and needs to have arguments presented to convince him of the truth. The propriety of the rebuke rests on our authority for doing it, not on the arguments which we present. This is based on the presumption that men often know that they are doing wrong, and need no arguments to convince them of it. The idea is, that the minister is not merely to reason about sin, and convince men that it is wrong; but he may solemnly admonish them not to do it, and warn them of the consequences. (I whole heartily agree!!!! That the minister is NOT MERELY to reason about sin and convince men that it is wrong BUT that there is this NON-GENTLE approach to solemnly admonish…not to gently admonish, not to softly admonish, not to admonish them with reason by appealing to the intellect and rational thought processes but to drop the hammer on the heart with all seriousness and strength.)

Mathew Henry comments on Titus 2:15

The great and necessary truths and duties of the gospel, especially, these speak and exhort, parakalei, press with much earnestness. Ministers must not be cold and lifeless in delivering heavenly doctrine and precepts, as if they were indifferent things or of little concern; but they must urge them with earnestness suitable to their nature and importance; they must call upon persons to mind and heed, and not be hearers only, deceiving themselves; but doers of the word, that they may be blessed therein. And rebuke; convince and reprove such as contradict or gainsay, or neglect and do not receive the truth as they should, or retain it in unrighteousness–those who hear it not with such a believing and obedient mind and heart as they ought, but, instead of this (it may be) live in contrary practices, showing themselves stubborn and disobedient, and to every good work reprobate. Rebuke with all authority, as coming in the name of God, and armed with his threatenings and discipline, whoever make light of which will do it at their peril. Ministers are reprovers in the gate.

In my opinion Mathew Henry does not say: Rebuke with all gentleness of spirit, armed with gentleness lest you should offend the sinner and drive them away…He says that we should be ARMED with the threatening and discipline that accompany the WRATH of God against all workers of iniquity and finishes his commentary by stating that Ministers are REPROVERS in the gate…

Question:

Does Paul give Timothy instructions in 2 Tim 2:19-26 that have to do with:

  1. Timothy’s relationship with his employer or neighbor
  2. Timothy’s relationships with friends and family
  3. Timothy’s involvement in secular, non-religious activities
  4. Timothy’s oversight of the church

Answer: D

Additional Supporting documentation

Commentary on 2 Tim 2:19-20

Adam Clark Comments:

In this place the apostle compares the religion of Christ to a great or noble mansion.  See 2Ti 2:20. And as this religion is founded on the authority and power of the Almighty, it necessarily must stand sure and be permanent.

Albert Barnes Comments:

The meaning is, that though some had been turned away by the arts of these errorists, yet the foundation of the church which God had laid remained firm.  As long as this foundation remained firm, there was no reason to be troubled from the few-instances of apostasy which had occurred

The meaning is, that it is an elementary principle in the true church, that all who become members of it should lead holy lives. It was also true that they would lead holy lives, and amidst all the defections of errorists, and all their attempts to draw away others from the true faith, those might be known to be the true people of God who did avoid evil.

________________________________________________________________________________

2 Tim 2:19 sets the stage for what is to follow in verses 20-26. The context here is that which has to do with Timothy’s attitude, disposition and course in dealing with problems and the people that create these particular problems WITHIN the church. In particular, it was those people that were causing problems by drawing believers away from the Christian faith. These people are referred to as “ERRORISTS” by Albert Barnes…they were in fact, JEWISH GNOSTICS!

Now let’s take a look at 2 Tim 2:23 “But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.”

Albert Barnes Comments:

Verse 23.  But foolish and unlearned questions avoid. See Barnes for 1Ti 1:4; See Barnes for 1Ti 1:6; See Barnes for 1Ti 4:7. The word unlearned, here, means trifling; that which does not tend to edification; stupid. The Greeks and the Hebrews were greatly given to controversies of various kinds; and many of the questions discussed pertained to points which could not be settled, or which, if settled, were of no importance. Such has been the character of no small part of the disputes which have agitated the world. Paul correctly says that the only effect of such disputes is to engender harsh contention. Points of real importance can be discussed with no injury to the temper; but men cannot safely dispute about trifles.

Jamieson Fausset Brown Comments:

unlearned–Greek, “undisciplined”; not tending to promote the discipline of faith and morals (Pr 5:23). “Uninstructive”; in contrast with “instructing” (2Ti 2:25), and “wise unto salvation” (2Ti 3:15).

People’s New Testament Commentary:

Foolish and unlearned questions avoid. Such unprofitable questions and speculations as the false teachers raise.

Robertson’s New Testament Word Pictures Commentary:

Ignorant (apaideutous). Old verbal, here only in N.T. (a privative and paideuô). Untrained, uneducated, “speculations of a half-educated mind”

So, here again, we find that there were those (GNOSTICS) who were causing problems for Timothy in the Church. These trouble makers were causing STRIFE by bringing up FOOLISH and STUPID questions…unprofitable speculations…causing controversy…leading some to abandon the faith. The instructions given to Timothy have to do with dealing with specific problems he was encountering from so who were harassing the church as it were…

How was Timothy to deal with these problems?

2 Tim 2:24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,

The key words are: STRIVE, GENTLE, PATIENT

Is Paul giving Timothy instructions on HOW TO PREACH to sinners in a public forum or HOW TO PREACH to new believers in the Church? Is this passage meant to be understood as having to do with Timothy’s PREACHING style? Is Paul concerned that Timothy is preaching to hard, that Timothy is using words in his preaching that his hearers would find to be offensive?  In other words, is the main point of this passage concerned with the feelings of the unsaved, wicked sinners that Timothy has been preaching to and their response to his message? The obvious answer is NO…Paul is not giving instruction to Timothy about his preaching style, manner, method or message. Paul is not telling Timothy that he needed to be careful so as not to offend wicked sinners with his choice of specific words when he is preaching. Paul is not telling Timothy that he should be one that does not STRIVE with sinners and that his public ministry should be characterized by the crowd as being GENTLE.  Paul is not telling Timothy that he needs to be PATIENT in terms of waiting for sinners to respond to his invitation to surrender all to Jesus…

In summary then I believe that the proposition you have set forth is properly understood within the context of the passage in which it appears and that being within the Church and among the brethren. I believe that the instruction given by Paul was not intended to be applied to the work of the public proclamation of the Will of God to a mixed multitude crowd in post-Christian America and I believe that I have support for this position from a variety of commentaries on the subject and scripture verses in question.

I hope that you will reconsider your decision not to attend the SOAPA conference but if not then I hope that we can remain friends and brothers in the faith.

May God richly bless you and your family!

Sincerely Yours in Christ,

Ben Narsil

The Myth of Heliocentrism by Pr. Charlie Kennon

by

Ptolemaic Mathematical Model of Biblical Cosmology

Historians, Astronomers, Mathematicians, Philosophers, and the New Age Scientism…

Is it really a proven scientific fact that the earth rotates on its axis at 1,000 mph. as it races through space at a speed of 66,000 mph. in orbit around the sun? Or is the earth, according to Scripture and verified scientific evidence actually at the center of the universe, stationary, and orbited by the sun, planets and star field? The glorious Biblical and scientifically validated truth set forth herein is sure to challenge the mythical heliocentric status quo and possibly your worldview as well. The tragic repercussion of rejecting the totality of the Scriptures as the perfect and authoritative standard of all reality, knowledge, ethics and beauty is that man will of necessity be relegated to grope in darkness as he vainly seeks to acquire certain knowledge independent of the Creator. Moreover, the Bible declares that all those who reject the self-attesting authority of God’s word will be given over to some degree of deception. This absolute spiritual truth is manifest in our day by the fact that “folly is set in great dignity” (Eccl 10:6). Case in point: What could be more laughable than evolution? What could be more barbaric than abortion? What could be more perverted than sodomy? What could be more demonic than Islam? What could be more arbitrary than psychology? Yet these antichrist ideologies are celebrated and promoted in our land and thought to be “normal” and even scientific.

To understand this cultural and epistemological dynamic, one must first understand the primary issue of history. Ultimately there has been only one battle which has raged since the beginning of time, and that is regarding what would be man’s ultimate standard and thus final authority in all things; The word of God or his own autonomous mind.
Thus in every discussion about any topic, the apparent issue of contention is usually not the ultimate issue; unless one is discussing the ultimate issue of course. Please allow me to explain. Whenever we engage anyone in dialogue regarding anything, the real battle of our discussion is not the “issue” but rather what will be the self-attesting final authority by which we will evaluate the facts and arrive at the truth.
For example, consider the abortion debate. The issue is not really pro-choice versus pro-life, but rather who defines and thus governs life; God’s word or man. The real issue in the marriage debate is likewise not heterosexual marriage versus homosexual marriage, but rather is God’s word the perfect and final authority, or does man have the right to autonomously define marriage. The controversy regarding origins and Genesis chapter one is not ultimately a battle between Creationism and Evolutionism or Religion and Science, but rather one regarding the veracity and authority of God’s Word as the only source of truth concerning ultimate issues.
The defining issue of life has always been and still is one regarding Lordship, and there are ultimately only two choices; God or man? Furthermore, one’s God/god is revealed, not by what one professes with his lips, but by his ultimate source of law; God’s word or his autonomous mind. Thus in the final analysis there are only two religions upon earth; Christianity and Humanism. Therefore in every facet of life there is one question to ask, “By what standard” do I form all of my beliefs and live my life. And the answer to that question determines if we will win or lose in the great battle of life.
If my thesis is true then we would expect satan to concentrate his efforts in the realm of final authority, and this is indeed exactly what we see. In his initial engagement with man, he leveled his attack upon God’s word with the question, “Hath God said?” For Adam and Eve, the real issue was thus not the tree of life versus the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, but rather the question of what would they look to as their ultimate standard of reality, truth, ethics and beauty; the perfect word of God or their own fallible mind. Satan knew that if he could win this battle, then he would win the war.
However, while many will rightly declare that the Bible is the ultimate authority over all of life, the real issue is whether or not one actually believes the Bible and even more significantly whether or not one allows the Bible is the ultimate authority for the Bible itself. Satan understands this essential foundational aspect and has deceived multitudes who erroneously believe they can either arbitrarily decide which portions they will believe or arrogantly stand in judgment over the Scriptures in correcting its contents. Some are ashamed of its seemingly outdated and “unscientific” teachings and thus succumb to the propaganda of “science falsely so called,” ( I Tim 6:20) which arrogantly calls the Scriptures unscientific. Such is the folly of so called higher criticism. I for one however, am unashamed to cleave to and declare the plain testimony of the perfectly preserved and thus scientifically accurate word of God with child-like simplicity and I boldly mock any and every deviation therefrom.

“But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets.” Acts 24:14

For roughly 5,400 years of history man held to a geocentric view of the universe because this was and is the unmistakable testimony of the Scriptures. However, in 1542 Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543) insisted that the sun, and not the earth, was worthy to be at the center of the universe and this heliocentric position would over the next one hundred years become the status quo. However, this Copernican Revolution, was not fundamentally scientific in nature but rather theological, for the real revolution was against the perfection and authority of Scripture over every facet of life.
“The reverberations of the Copernican Revolution still ring today, particularly in the realms of politics and theology; for without said revolution, there could be no higher criticism which assumes God is incapable of writing what he meant to say or meaning what he wrote. Without the Copernican Revolution there would be no Marxism in which the state replaces God. Nor could there be any evolutionism with its bigotry and racism and faith that man will eventually evolve to ultimately overpower God. After all, if God cannot be taken literally when he writes of the “rising of the sun,” then how can he be taken literally in writing of the “rising of the Son?” According to ‘science’ both are impossible.” Gerardus Bouw, Ph.D Perhaps you may be tempted to muse, “Is this controversy really that important?’ Indeed it is! For the very character, word and eternal purpose of God in His creation are at stake. Moreover, if one does not understand what God has declared about the nature and position of our world in the universe, how can he even begin to establish a sound “Worldview.” Furthermore, if something is taught in Scripture, it must be important since there are no insignificant or disposable doctrines in the Bible. It was this very posture of fundamentalism which influenced men to wrongly believe that if something was not a salvific fundamental then it was not significant and thus a surrendering of said minors would not affect the foundations. Additionally and most significantly, we must realize that it was on this very issue of geocentricity that satan through “science” challenged God’s word before the eyes of the world.

 

A Brief Historical Sketch

An important question we should ask is this, “Why did Copernicus come to the conclusion that the sun is the center of the universe?” The answer to this question is to be found, not in the realm of science, but rather in the realm of religion and philosophy. Copernicus was particularly interested in the pagan Greek philosophers, Pythagoras and Aristarchus. Both of these men considered that the sun, being the embodiment of everything good and noble in the universe, should be the center of all of life. Copernicus agreed with his ancient Greek counterparts, and thus devised a heliocentric cosmological model in which the sun was the center of the universe and the stars and planets, including the earth, revolved around it. Although Copernicus’ theory provided explanations for odd phenomena like retrograde motion, it really did not prove that the planets actually orbited the sun.

Galileo Galilei (1564-1642), a Renaissance scientist, enthusiastically took up Copernicus’ position. In doing so he attracted the attention of the Inquisition, who demanded that he produce proof for the new system. However, he had no proof, but simply stated that “he could not persuade himself” that the sun moved around the earth, because if it did, it would have to travel at a vast speed. This, however, was not a scientific proof either, and so Galileo was ordered to stop teaching the heliocentric view as fact. Galileo however continued to teach it anyway and was eventually placed under house arrest. Galileo claimed that he had found proof for the Copernican system when he constructed a telescope through which he was able to observe the four moons of Jupiter. Just as Jupiter’s moons circled Jupiter, he said, so the earth and the other planets of the solar system circle the sun. Of course, this did not prove anything except that the moons of Jupiter do indeed go around Jupiter. However, Galileo falsely deduced that his observation necessitated the smaller earth must orbit the larger sun. (It is also of note that a year before Galileo’s death he recanted of his heliocentrism and sided with the Scriptures.)
Tycho Brahe (1546–1601), recognized as one of the greatest observational astronomers of all time, devised a different model to account for these cosmological observations. In his model, he placed the earth at the center of the universe for one reason only: the Bible indicates that that is where it is. Brahe had the sun circling the earth, and the planets circling the sun, and being dragged around with the sun in their orbits, just as Jupiter carries its moons around with it as it orbits the sun. Brahe could satisfactorily account for his observations using this model. Unfortunately, Brahe died before he could publish his findings. He asked his assistant, Johannes Kepler, to publish them for him in terms of his geocentric view. Kepler, however, only partially kept his promise. He described Brahe’s model and showed that all the observations were consistent with it, but he personally preferred Copernicus’s model and came out openly in support of it.
Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727) was a giant in scientific history, however it is interesting that Newton wrote more about Bible prophecy and chronology than all his other works combined. Newton’s formulas regarding gravity and motion affirmed the present heliocentric model with the stipulation that there were no forces outside our solar system exerting its influences thereupon. For, according to Newton, if there were other forces outside of our galaxy, a geocentric model could be sustained. “In reality, Newton did not teach that the smaller must go around the larger; rather, he taught that all celestial bodies will revolve around the center of mass. As such, even Newton agreed in his Principia that the earth could occupy the center of mass if all the other bodies in the universe were strategically placed around it so that all their gravitational masses balanced out at the center. In short, this is the scientific basis for geocentrism – the earth is the center of mass for the universe, and thus the universe will revolve around the earth.” Robert Sungenis  Through the findings of Ernst Mach (1838-1916) some years later, this erroneous presupposition of Galileo regarding smaller bodies necessarily orbiting larger bodies was discredited. Mach, one of the greatest scientists of the last century, was responsible for introducing the additional necessary influences of the starfield upon our galaxy and thus meeting the stipulation of Newton. In essence Mach proved that due to the gravitational effects of the stars, there was no difference scientifically between a rotating earth and a fixed sun and a fixed earth and a moving sun and starfield, for both were scientifically viable and would produce the same effects upon the earth. Mach was troubled by the fact that there was no sound reason, based on observation, to reject the idea that the earth could be stationary at the centre of the universe. “Obviously it matters little if we think of the earth as turning about on its axis, or if we view it at rest while the fixed stars revolve around it. Geometrically these are exactly the same case of a relative rotation of the earth and the fixed stars with respect to one another.” In other words, according to Mach the two views of geocentrism and heliocentrism were equally valid on the basis of scientific equations and observation.

Ideas Have Consequences

Copernicus was in essence a Humanist who for philosophical reasons posited his deviant theory of heliocentrism which was nothing short of a direct attack upon the Scriptures. This tragic paradigm shift removed the earth from its God given privileged position in the universe, and reduced it to a wandering and insignificant planet hurtling through space. Higher criticism was a direct result of this satanic undermining of the Scriptures scientific accuracy. Upon the heels of the Copernican Revolution came the French Revolution. Not long after came Charles Lyell, who taking advantage of the revolutionary spirit unleashed by Copernicus, attacked Noah’s flood and posited his theory of Uniformitarianism which became the foundation of Darwin’s evolutionary speculations. Darwin confessed that without Copernicus opening the door of higher criticism, his theory never would have seen the light of day. It was then Marx who applied Darwin’s principles to politics and economics as he too acknowledged his indebtedness to Copernicus. Later came Nietzsche, Hitler, Sanger and others riding the wave of deception unleashed via the Copernican Principle. In the 1920’s Lenin himself expressed his indebtedness to Copernicus for making the world a safe place for Marxism and Communism. And if that is not enough just consider the devastating effects upon society which Einstein’s theory of Relativity has wrought not in the scientific realm only, but in regards to morality and truth. Ideas indeed have consequences, and when the foundation of Scriptural perfection, relevance and authority are undermined, the flood gates of hell are opened upon mankind. “After the [Copernican Revolution], the Bible was no longer considered authoritative in the realms of science, philosophy, and day to day reality. Less than 200 years after surrendering the Bible’s authority in the realm of Physical science, man surrendered it’s spiritual authority at the hands of the German school of higher criticism, a way of criticizing the Bible which is supposedly is based on natural revelation, that is, upon ‘scientific’ principles.”

What saith the Scripture?

When I was first challenged regarding the Biblical truth of geocentricity I laughed at this seemingly unscientific position. However, when I realized I had absolutely no Scripture for my then present heliocentric view I was troubled. Once I saw the clear testimony of Scripture on this subject that was all I needed and I was immediately convinced of this glorious God honoring and Scripture exalting truth.

“To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” Isaiah 8:20

The clear testimony of Scripture declares that the earth is indeed stationary, neither revolving on an axis nor orbiting the sun. Furthermore the Scriptures state throughout its testimony that the sun both rises and sets (over 60 verses in the Scriptures), and thus orbits the earth. Not once does the Bible ever refer to the earth as rotating or moving through space. Those who say that the Bible is only recording the “appearance” of the movement of the sun are having to add to the plain meaning of the understanding of the Scriptures. Furthermore such are adopting the same position as liberal critics who have tried to destroy the perfection and authority of the Bible. Many erroneously declare that the passages which seem to posit geocentricity are merely figurative or poetic language. But this hermeneutical observation is more erudite than helpful, for poetry is as clear in its meaning as prose. “The world also is established that it cannot be moved” (Psalms 96:10) can hardly be a poetic way of saying that the earth is spinning on its axis and gyrating through space in a path determined by its orbit of the sun.
“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” Genesis 1:1-2
The Earth was created on day one as the focal point and center of God’s creation. If the earth moved, what did it orbit on the first three days of creation? Why would it remain stationary for three days and then begin moving? Why would the earth revolve around the sun since the sun was created for the earth? It makes perfect sense in light of God’s unique purposes in the earth that it was created to be the very center of His Creation, a fact which undeniably declares His existence and authority over all things. For if the earth is indeed the center of our universe, then Someone with a capital “S” put it there. In fact, it is the theological significance of this favored position which keeps modern cosmological humanists from adopting the equally scientifically valid position of geocentricity. Modern scientists freely admit that geocentricity is just as scientifically valid as heliocentricity. Esteemed scientists such as Lawrence Krauss and Max Tegmark admit that the scientific evidence seems to point to geocentricity, but due to the theological and thus moral implications of such a position, they choose heliocentrism, not for its scientific superiority but rather because of said philosophical reasons.
Joshua’s Long Day
“Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.” Joshua 10:12-13
Regarding Joshua’s long day, the evidence in support of a geocentric model is overwhelming. Joshua commanded the sun to stand still and the Holy Ghost narrative confirms that this is indeed what happened. Joshua did not order the earth to cease rotating, nor did he qualify his statement with the divine knowledge that the sun was merely made to appear stationary. The sun was commanded to stand still because it is the sun that moves. Moreover, it is only possible to stop something that is moving.
Hezekiah’s Sign
“Behold, I will bring again the shadow of the degrees, which is gone down in the sun dial of Ahaz, ten degrees backward. So the sun returned ten degrees, by which degrees it was gone down. “ Isaiah 38:8
Again, the Holy Ghost narrative declares that the sun returned ten degrees and thus it was clearly the sun that moved and not the earth. Please note that in both of these accounts (Joshua and Hezekiah) that we are not reading what appeared to happen from man’s perspective, but rather what indeed happened from God’s perspective as the Spirit of God declares these things. The Psalmist plainly states that the sun is “as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race. His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.” Psalm 19:5-6
Moreover the Scriptures declare that not only does the sun have a cricut, but the stars have a circuit as well. “They fought from heaven; the stars in their courses fought against Sisera.” Judges 5:20 However, nowhere is the Earth described as having any kind of circuit or course in all the word of God.
The Earth is at Rest
The plain testimony regarding the earth in the word of God is that it is at rest, neither orbiting or rotating. The times which the Scriptures refer to the earth moving is an anomaly which is always in regards to judgment. “And they answered the angel of the LORD that stood among the myrtle trees, and said, We have walked to and fro through the earth, and, behold, all the earth sitteth still, and is at rest.” Zechariah 1:11
“Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.” 1 Chronicles 16:30 “Which shaketh the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble.” Job 9:6
“Therefore will not we fear, though the earth be removed, and though the mountains be carried into the midst of the sea.” Psalm 46:2 “The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.” Psalm 93:1
“Say among the heathen that the LORD reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved: he shall judge the people righteously.” Psalm 96:10 “Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.” Psalm 104:5 “Thy faithfulness is unto all generations: thou hast established the earth, and it abideth.” Psalm 119:90 “One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever.” Ecclesiastes 1:4 “Therefore I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall remove out of her place, in the wrath of the LORD of hosts, and in the day of his fierce anger.” Isaiah 13:13 “Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.” 1 Corinthians 8:13
Although I realize that the prominent meaning of some of these descriptions may not be cosmological, it is an obvious inference that the testimony of the Scriptures regarding the earth is that it is neither rotating or orbiting but stationary. Coupled with the Scriptures regarding the clear movement of the sun and stars, the implications are obvious.
The Resurrection of Christ and the Rising of the Sun
But perhaps the greatest consequence of denying the literal rising of the sun is that if the sun does not rise, then according to the Scriptures neither does Christ. God sets forth the sun as a type of Christ rising from the dead and if we make such language poetical then we negate the very essence of Christianity, the resurrection of Jesus Christ who in like manner rose from the dead. But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall. Malachi 4:2

What saith Science?

“…All this evidence that the universe looks the same whichever direction we look in might seem to suggest there is something special about our place in the universe. In particular, it might seem that if we observe all other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the center of the universe.” Stephen Hawking
No scientific experiment has ever been performed to prove the earth either rotates on an axis or orbits the sun. In fact, every “proof” for a moving earth rotating on its axis has been discredited. Moreover, multitudes of scientific experiments have shown the earth to be stationary and at rest.
In fact, Einstein’s theory of Special Relativity was primarily to counter the many experiments which showed the earth was not moving. His subsequent General Theory of Relativity was to cover weaknesses in the Special Theory. (It is also significant that Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity allowed for the possibility that the Earth was at the center of the universe and motionless.)

Scientific Experiments Proving Geocentricity

1. The Michelson-Morley Experiment
In 1887, using an interferometer this experiment failed to detect any movement of the earth around the sun. It compared the speed of light in perpendicular directions, in an attempt to detect the relative motion of matter through the stationary aether. The result was negative, in that the expected difference between the speed of light in the direction of movement through the presumed aether, and the speed at right angles, was found not to exist. This result was a threat to the heliocentric status quo and had to be overcome. Thus the rescuing device of the ad hoc Fitzgerald-Lorentz shortening of the experimental apparatus was proposed, and eventually the paradoxical Relativity Theory was invented by Einstein to overcome this problem. However, there are three other experiments that have been deliberately ignored by universities because they support geocentricity.
2. The Michelson-Gale Experiment
This experiment detected the aether passing the surface of the earth with an accuracy of 2% of the speed of the daily rotation of the earth. Thus, the Michelson-Morely experiment detected no movement of the earth around the sun, yet the Michelson-Gale experiment measured a specific movement which was either the earth’s rotation or the aether’s rotation around the earth. This result speaks volumes for geocentricity because a rotating universe around a stationary earth would produce said effect. Moreover, the heliocentric model demand both a rotating and orbiting earth and this experiment would only validate its orbit.
3. “Airey’s failure”
If the earth were indeed moving through space, a telescope would have to be tilted slightly to get the starlight to go down the axis of the tube. In 1871 Airey filled one telescope with water which would slow down the speed of the light inside that telescope, but he discovered that he did not have to change the angle of the telescope at all. This showed that the starlight was already coming in at the correct angle so that no change was needed. This demonstrated that it was the stars that were moving relative to a stationary earth and not the fast orbiting earth moving relative to the comparatively stationary stars. For if it was the telescope moving he would have had to change the angle.
4. The Sagnac Experiment

Sagnac Experiment
Sagnac rotated a table complete with light and mirrors with the light being passed in opposite directions around the table between the mirrors. He detected the movement of the table by the movement of the interference fringes on the target where they were recombined. This proved that there is an aether that the light has to pass through and this completely destroys Einstein’s theory of Relativity that says there is no aether. It is for this reason that this experiment is completely ignored by scientists.
[An interesting sidenote is that all GPS satellites have the “Sagnac Effect” included into their computer programs which is another evidence against the theory of Relativity and an accredidation to the truths set forth in this article.]

Scientific Facts

According to Newton, Mach, Hawking, and Einstein both a moving earth in a fixed universe or a fixed earth with a moving sun/planets/star field are scientifically valid. Thus there are no scientific problems with the geocentric model.
“People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations.” […] “For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.” […] “You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.” George F.R. Ellis
“The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS (Coordinate System) could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, ‘the sun is at rest and the earth moves,’ or ‘the sun moves and the earth is at rest,’ would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS.” Albert Einstein
All celestial phenomena such as stellar parallax and stellar aberration, the retrograde motion of planets, Coriolis Effect, Euler forces, and the Foucault Pendulum can all be explained from the geometry and dynamics of geocentrism.
Furthermore geocentrism solves many of the problems of modern Cosmology for it needs no Inflation, Dark Matter or Dark Energy, and does not have a limit the speed of light. In fact the latest cosmological evidence regarding CMBR studies places the earth at or near the center of the universe.

Is Heliocentricity Really Scientific?

The famous astronomer Edwin Hubble published on 1937 a study on the cosmological model of the universe, under the title “The Observational Approach to Cosmology.” In the data published in that study it was evident that Earth appeared as having a “unique” position in the cosmos, i.e. that it was in the center or very close to it. However Hubble chose not to accept that unique position based on philosophical propositions that he presupposed.
In particular, even though the nebula distribution showed that Earth should be in a center position, he discarded that idea based on the “principle” that we are not unique. In order to accommodate that “principle” he added some corrective factors to his equations. It was as unscientific and simple as that! No hard data, no scientific analysis, but merely an arbitrary and philosophical belief was the basis of his choice of heliocentricity over geocentricity.
Even though scientific data showed that the Earth is at a privileged centric position in the universe, cosmologists in the days of Hubble chose simply not to “accept” that data based on philosophical grounds. Here is a quote from Hubble himself when he saw the redshift phenomena in his telescope indicating that the earth was at the center of the universe…
“Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central Earth…This hypothesis cannot be disproved, but it is unwelcome and would only be accepted as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore we disregard this possibility…. the unwelcome position of a favored location must be avoided at all costs…. such a favored position is intolerable…”
One prominent “scientist” George Wald once declared “There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible.” Thus, like the unscientific evolutionist, we see that modern Cosmology is neither led to its position of heliocentricity via an honest pursuit of truth, but rather it is unnaturally driven there by its refusal to accept the obvious scientific and Scriptural evidence which would necessitate a Creator and thus a Judge.
“Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. ” Richard Lewontin

What do you believe regarding this subject my friend? And more importantly, why do you believe it? Is the word of God your epistemological foundation, or have you exalted your reason above God’s testimony and perhaps given credence to another myth of scientism inspired by the spirit of the age which is hostile to God and His word? CK.

http://www.jesuspreacher.com/the-law-of-diminishing-perspective/

http://www.jesuspreacher.com/the-flat-earth-controversy-fact-fiction-or-both/

The Scriptural Foundation of Geocentricity

Marshall University Hates Us Back and They Are Sorry!

by

by John McGlone 09/27/17

This is a letter from one of the ‘loving’ Christians on Marshall University who has seen our preaching these last two days with Br. Zachary Humphrey and myself.  They loved us so much they called us niggahs, threatened us with bodily harm, stole my camera, sexually harassed us, blew multiple saxophones most of the day for both days in an attempt to shut down our freedom to speak and be heard, lied and slandered about us,  and had the audacity to call us bigoted, racist, and unloving.

The charge that one of us said, “…one of the preachers telling a Freshman that she was “asking to be raped”.” is in light of that bisexual exposing her breasts and tempting the preacher with taunting asking if her deserving to be raped.  Zachary called out the bisexual’s wicked fruit of her ‘Christian’ life.   He replied that her immodesty was a way of provoking men on campus to rape her.  I’ll let Zachary give his testimony  if he would like to clarify or if I have miscommunicated.

Below, is the imbalanced view and poor communication of one of the students from Marshall U

A Letter to Marshall University.

Marshall University. I am sorry.

Here at Marshall University, these past few days have been filled with nothing but pure hatred from two street preachers who label themselves as “Christians.” These two street preachers hated each other the first day, but then the second day something horrific happened–they decided to join forces and work together to yell horrible things at the students of Marshall University. I’ve never been so heartbroken in my life after hearing some of the things that were said during this event.

Seeing as I am a Christian myself, some of the stuff they said was biblically accurate, but it is the way in which they portray their presentation that turns people off and make them want to retailiate. Yes, Jesus did die for our sins, but Jesus does not hate us, nor will Jesus EVER hate us. The street preachers have been shouting terrible remarks and making derogatory comments towards not only females but males as well. I even witnessed one of the preachers telling a Freshman that she was “asking to be raped” due to her outfit which consisted of jeans, and a crop top. Both of the preachers also had the audacity to tell the women that were just simply walking by, that they were “whores” and “sluts.” Then five minutes later one of them was preaching about “loving one another,” while minutes before this he was preaching nothing but pure hatred.

During this insane encounter, I also heard one of the preachers say that he doesn’t sin and that after we become Christians we don’t sin at all. Well, as Christians we sin everyday. Sometimes we don’t even realize that we sin, but we do. He was also pointing out the flaws and imperfections of students as they were walking by. As Christians, we are in no place to judge our peers. The only person who can judge us is God, the only perfect person to walk this Earth.

Yesterday as I was walking through campus I heard multiple people say “This is why I hate Christianity.” Well I have three words for you: I am sorry. I am so unbelievably sorry that you have to witness these horrific things being said to you from people who are claiming to be so called “Christians.” Yes, I am a Christian, but I will never hate you or say such terrible things to you. In the bible it talks about loving one another, and that my friends is what I am here to do. I will never judge you based upon appearance, religion, sexuality, race, gender, etc. As a Christian, I am supposed to be a caring and loving individual. Marshall University, I just want to apologize if you have ever been hurt by the Christian community, or anyone who claims to be a “Christian.” It’s very possible that I may or may have not been that person to hurt you, but this is my God. This is my religion. This is what I live for. Therefore, I am sorry if you have been hurt by our community. Just please know that as Christians, we are not to judge or hate anyone.

In a weird but wonderful way, Marshall University is coming together and joining forces to tell people that what they are saying isn’t Christianity. It’s amazing to see the Sons and Daughters of Marshall standing up for what they believe in, and doing it so passionately.

My God is a loving, generous, and caring Father, whom I am very thankful for. He died for me knowing that I might not ever want him, but he still loved me anyway. To me, that right there is something live for.

Luke 23:3 ESV– And Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.”

URGENT CAMPUS PREACHERS ALERT!! SPEECH LAWS CHANGED

by

09/07/17 by John McGlone

Saints of God, we all need to involve ourselves in the process of getting legislation passed in our home states to ensure that freedoms of ; speech, assembly, religion, and press remain effectual on public Universities. There is a pattern of legislation on this issue that has already passed in MO, KY, TN, NC, and CO.

We need to ensure that our lawmakers ADD protections to the legislation for unaffiliated speakers  to be allowed on campus in the public areas to speak.  This would apply to legislation that is being worked on, or even legislation that is already in place if provision was not made for this group of citizens in the first place.

There are many individuals like myself and scores of other Christian campus preachers that will be left out of the opportunity if we don’t address this issue now to our home state legislators.  PLEASE, make this an important and urgent task to contact by phone, letter, and emails to every member of your Representatives and Senators.

Antifa, BLM, GLBTQ, Communist, and other such ‘progressive’ and liberally minded organizations want to foster hatred for these freedoms calling them racist, bigoted, and many other untrue names.  Not only that they are fostering racial divides, riots, destruction, even on our University campuses.  Americans need to stand up and ensure we are heard that we will not allow these groups to rule over the institutions that our hard work and tax monies have built!

Here is  a short instructional video I made to share how we can efficiently contact our Representatives and Senators about this important issue of including the non affiliated or non sponsored speaker on College campuses:

PENDING

Here is what happened last term at Miami University in Oxford, OH when we preached the Gospel for three days on campus.  The Communists and Antifa yelled and suppressed our speech and even threatened and stalked us to our car every day yelling, “Go home, go home, go home…ad nauseum.”

 

 

U.S. News Summary of States Enacting #CampusFreeSpeech Laws Article

 

IN New Campus Free Speech Law

KY New Campus Free Speech Law

NC New Campus Free Speech Law

OH New Campus Free Speech Law PENDING contact your lawmakers!

TN New Campus Free Speech Law

UT New Campus Free Speech Law

VA New Campus Free Speech Law