"Preach the Word,

Hindu extremist groups are offering money, food and alcohol to anyone who murders Christians and destroys their homes.

The violence is nothing new in Orissa, India, where India's Communist Party estimates that more than 500 Christians have been killed by Hindu mobs in Orissa since late August, 12 times more than official government claims of only 40 homicides.

But now the stakes are even higher - and pastors have a bounty on their heads.

Faiz Rahman, chairman of Good News India, said Hindu militants are targeting Christian leaders, the Christian Post reported.

"The going price to kill a pastor is $250," he said.

Rahman, a head of several orphanages in Orissa State, said he's helped 25 pastors to leave refugee camps, but 250 Christian leaders are still in shelters.

"All of the pastors are high value targets," Rahman told the UK-based Release International. "We've got to get them out of the refugee camps."

An All-India Christian Council spokesman said, "People are being offered rewards to kill, and to destroy churches and Christian properties. They are being offered foreign liquor, chicken, mutton and weapons. They are given petrol and kerosene."

Read More Here

To be forewarned is to be forearmed

The basis of some people's Christianity is if a miracle takes place, it is sufficient evidence for them to believe it is from God. They never check it out or test it; something that God commands us to do. The Bible teaches us that Satan uses this method to deceive the naïve, the immature, and the ignorant to remove them from walking in the truth of the word. Someone who argues that miracles are from God 100 percent of the time is already open to deception. This becomes a major flaw from those who are willing to accept all miracles that happens is from God. To avoid testing is to neglect many of the Bibles commands for our safety. Jesus warns us about a movement in the last days that will be done by many coming in his name (Mt.24:5-6) and include miraculous signs taking place. Matthew 24:23-25: "Then if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or 'There!' do not believe it. For false christ's and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect." If a Christian neglects this they will be deceived.

Read More Here

We are constantly reminded of Paul's admonition to "prove all things, hold fast that which is good" (1 Thessalonians 5:21).

[Note: Article adapted from The Berean Call, November 21, 2008]

This is a follow up to my other post and the comment I received regarding that article. Go here for the first post.

What was the temptation placed before man? The tree? Or the Woman? Or God's instructions? If we focus on the sin of eating the fruit as the first sin then maybe there is a point of God setting up man but the tree was just an object of a temptation or rather the 'question in a test'...it just shows if we can follow instructions.

Luke 6:1-2 tells us that "...Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost returned from Jordan [note: where He was just baptized.], and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness. Being forty days tempted of the devil." [note: See also Matthew 3:13-4:11; Mark 1:9-13] Was Jesus being set up by the spirit to be tempted? YES! Was Jesus being set up to fail? NO! Did Jesus face the same kind of temptation set up as Adam did? Yes, He did. But He proved faithful and thus perfect to be the only one to remove the curse and debt of sin, right? So was Jesus set up to fail or succeed because of the temptation? Neither He passed the test because He followed the instructions, just like any student in school passes the test by learning and applying the information taught.

Is it a sin to be tempted or to yield to the temptation to the sin? Would it have been better if the garden was full of trees they were told not to eat and only one good true to eat from? Consider that wherever you are in the garden if you get hungry you can only eat from the one tree in the middle. The other ones that may be easier to get to and looked refreshing they would bring about sin's curse...does this scenario fill the same role as being set up for failure? I would think yes would be appropriate. The test objective is still the same and in fact the test is even harder. God told man just stay away from the one tree to protect it self and he failed at this simple thing. Why? Let's look at what I believe to be the true first sin.

I believe that the Bible shows that Adam added to God's instructions [note compare Gen 2:16-17 to 3:1-3]. Eve was not yet created in 2:17 so who told her about God's instructions? Did Adam add that "not to touch" stipulation? Did this give the room for Satan to raise doubts about what God said? We see Adam was "with her" (Gen 3:6). Why didn't he correct Eve or tell the serpent what God did say...Adam had heard it. When he didn't reinforce what God's instructions were...it raised opportunity for the serpent to cause Eve to question. But Adam couldn't have reinforced God's instructions because he had lied and added to them...albeit for a noble reason but still he lied when he implied what God's instructions to Eve were...don't eat..don't touch. This leads me to reason that the taking of the fruit was not the temptation or the sin, the mess was created by Adam adding to God's instructions and then lying or trying to at least conceal the truth. Adam should have revealed that he added something different to God's original instructions when the serpent asked "Yea, hath God said..." (Gen 3:1). But instead Adam kept this to himself and then once on this slippery slope he became a willing participant in the eating of the fruit offered to him.

Here's a curious thought - when their eyes were opened what did they know? Did they know that Adam had lied and that he failed to really care for Eve and warn her? Do you think she understood what kind of selfish, self-centered, conniving man Adam was, especially when he blamed God for "the woman whom thou gavest me" (Gen 3:12)?

How was Jesus was successful in escaping temptation? By using the 'Words of God' (the Scripture) the exact area that Adam failed at. Adam twisted the Words of God to fit his desire to not be alone, for his need of companionship, or whatever his personal reasons were. But ultimately when it came time for the test of temptation he failed to use God's words. He was trapped by his sin of lying/adding to God's instructions and truly this is the failure of man.

Since I believe this to be the first and ultimate sin of mankind...guess what the tree really had less of an effect than we like to think on the sin in the garden. Man is constantly being tempted...being tested...only following God's exact instructions can make us successful. Just like at school, huh?

Please think on these things and let me know if I can be of any more help.

When Bible believers discuss the “Word of God” they assume everyone agrees they are referring to the Bible. But if you are talking to a Roman Catholic, he is probably thinking of more than that.

In October a Synod of Bishops was called to discuss “The Word of God in the Life and Mission of the Church.” Guidelines for discussion contain this statement: “Both [the Bible and Tradition] are channels of communication of the Word of God. Therefore, the Word of God finds its completeness of meaning and grace in experiencing both, ‘one inside the other.’ In this way, both can be called, and indeed are, the “Word of God.”

This may seem like so much doublespeak, but it essentially expands the definition of the “Word of God” to include the Roman Catholic Tradition. Therefore, when we speak of the “Word of God” to a Roman Catholic, he is not thinking just the Bible, but also the Tradition or “Magisterium.” It is this official Tradition that encrusts the Bible with all the ritual, superstition and priestcraft so contradictory to Scripture.

So, when you use the Bible to witness to a Roman Catholic, he does not see it as God’s complete word for him. In fact, he has been taught that he cannot even understand the Bible unless it is interpreted by Roman Catholic “Tradition.”

The guidelines for the Synod go on to confirm this: “…the faithful have the responsibility to listen to [the Bible] and meditate on it; but to explain it is the responsibility only of those who by right of sacred ordination have the task of teaching or those who have been entrusted with the exercise of this ministry.” While the layman may “listen to and meditate on [the Bible],” only the pope and his priests are allowed to “explain” it.

This is no different from the Jehovah’s Witness who is told he is not capable of understanding the Bible, but must rely on the Watchtower Society to interpret and “explain” it.

In Matthew 15, Jesus told the Pharisees, “…ye have made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.” Can the pope avoid the same condemnation when the Bible says Jesus is the only mediator but Vatican “Tradition” says pray to the Virgin Mary goddess? Or the Bible says God is Spirit to be worshiped “in spirit and truth” but the pope says worship a wafer god, instead? Or, the Bible says the Holy Spirit will guide us to truth but the pope says the “church” and its “Tradition” must “explain” what is truth?

How this spiritual bondage plays out is graphically illustrated by a young lady who this writer attempted to witness to. When encouraged to study the Bible, she responded, “No, if I read the Bible it will raise questions that I do not understand. If I have a problem, I go to my priest and he solves it for me.”

With Jehovah’s Witnesses, soul winners have discovered that the best approach is to plant seeds of doubt about the Watchtower Society. A similar approach with Roman Catholics can be effective. Chick Publications has tracts and books that equip you to do this. Paperback books Understanding Roman Catholicism and Answers to my Catholic Friends point out the unbiblical teachings of the Traditions, or Magisterium. Babylon Religion and The Two Babylons detail the pagan origins of the unscriptural Traditions. Tracts include Why is Mary Crying?, Last Rites, The Death Cookie and Are Roman Catholics Christians?

The precious Roman Catholics are trusting this prostitute “church” to get them to heaven. They need to know that Jesus said to “come out of her…that ye be not partakers of her sins.” Rev. 18:4.

[Article from "Battle Cry" Novmeber/December 2008 Issue]

Recently, I was presented with this 'argument' about God, Adam, and Sin. Now the Bible says that God doesn't tempt us but is that right? James 1:13 - Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

Here is the discussion...

Genesis 2:17 - But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Why would a loving God place temptation before the very first man created knowing what the outcome would be. Isn't that making sure that man would fall? Why would that same loving God then sentence people to hell for taking advantage of something that He created? Something is not right with this picture. All that was accomplished by God creating that tree was the first humans had their lives destroyed, they were cast out of the garden that God had created for them, the first man born on earth murdered his brother, and the second man born was murdered. Now somebody please tell me this is good. And of course down through the ages man has hated, killed, and went to hell because sin was passed down by God's first creation. What was God thinking?

Why should all mankind be sentenced to having to choose between good and evil, because the first man and woman decided to eat something God forbade them to eat? We all have the power to choose and I understand that but the Bible says that sin was passed down from Adam as though we have no choice but to sin and that is exactly what the Bible says. [Romans 5:12 - Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; so death was passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:] Adam was born with no sin. Why don't we all have the same choice? Why should we all be sentenced to death because one man sinned? Even our justice is better than that. A man commits a crime , is sentenced but his family isn't convicted because is.

OK first off this is the kind circle logic that gets people focusing in the wrong direction. I don't criticize or blame people for this reasoning we see that John the Baptist, the forerunner of Jesus (who boldly proclaimed Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world. John 1:29) even had a time of doubts and questions (Matt. 11:2-15, Luke 7:18-35 - He asked of Jesus Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another?). Jesus set a great example in dealing with John's doubts but proving his heavenly power. So the first answer I would have for one who brought of these questions is that God showed His love by sending Jesus and Jesus showed His love by willingly giving His life for us. One would think that if God was setting up anyone for heartache it would be himself or Jesus...He who knew no sin yet willingly gave all He had to become the appeasement of God's righteousness (see Phil. 2:5-8 & Rom. 5:6-21).

Secondly, this reasoning can simply be answered in the same circle reasoning of man's logic. To blame God for 'setting man up for failure' is like blaming the auto industry for making engines that go much faster than the speed limit. The driver has a choice to speed even though the capabilities and opportunity is in front of the driver to go 120 MPH that doesn't mean that man is 'being set up to get a speeding ticket'. Auto manufacturers know that people are going to speed and that mankind has the capability to speed, and is presented with opportunities to speed...ultimately though it is up to the driver to choose to speed. The same with Adam's sin in the garden. He chose to tell Eve something different than what God told him (compare Gen. 2:17 & 3:3). She chose to look at it, take it, eat it and then offer it to Adam that was there with her. And he chose to take it from her and eat it as well. They simply made a choice, albeit a seriously bad choice that has affected all of us. But a choice that God was prepared for by having a plan in place before the world was formed that was fulfilled by Jesus' death on the cross.

Thirdly, if the first man didn't choose and as the person making the question asked why not give each man a choice to sin or not...God in His wisdom knew that man would sin someday if not Adam then Cain, or any other of offspring of Adam and Eve. So let's apply some of this reverse logic and say that God didn't delay the inevitable and that He actually shows great mercy and wisdom knowing (or designing) the situation with the first man sinning so that the plan would be put into place immediately for man to have a way to escape the judgement of sin. Understand that I don't think that God said "oh well, it's going to happen anyways. I guess I might as well do it now" but if one wants to discuss a silly logic I can counter with another silly logic of my own.

Fourth, to compare God's justice system to ours is ridiculous. On one hand we have wrongly accused and condemned innocent people for crimes that they didn't commit. On the other hand, when a man is condemned for a crime while the court doesn't condemn the family, the situation in essence does condemn them and they suffer greatly for it. No one sins in a vacuum. There are always effects we know it, we see it, we experience it and God knew it from the very beginning and mankind has been paying for it ever since and compounding it with our own sins making it worse for each generation.

I hope that my points are considered and would love to have you leave comments or counter points to the original item or my counter-points. Thanks for reading and God bless!

Every phase of the Protestant Reformation in Europe was preceded by an immense tract effort that almost “turned the world upside down.”

Martin Luther wrote more than one tract, booklet, or book for every working week of his entire life.

Among the most precious items of cargo on the Mayflower on her first trip to America were Pastor John Robinson’s tracts.

William Penn, founder of the city of Philadelphia, wrote a single religious tract that freed 12,000 Quakers imprisoned for Christ’s sake.

Benjamin Franklin ghostwrote and printed the tracts for several early American evangelists, including those of George Whitefield.

Almost every foreign mission field in the world was opened by missionaries who first used tracts to win the heathen to Christ. A son of one of the chiefs of Burdwain, India, was converted through a single tract, and he was instrumental in winning 1,500 natives to Christ.

Dwight L. Moody began his fruitful evangelistic ministry in Chicago by
the simple act of distributing tracts to Great Lakes seaman.

John Wanamaker, while Postmaster General of the United States, carefully selected gospel tracts for distribution to those with whom he came in contact.

Whistler’s Mother was called a “preacher in skirts” because she distributed tracts to the workers on the railroad between Moscow and St. Petersburg, Russia.

Article by Evangelist Mike Azinger (used with permission)

If you look up the word “casual” in the Webster’s 1828 Dictionary, you will find the phrase, “see [also] Accident.” At the scene of accidents, you find “casualties.” “Casualty,” I was told some years ago, has the same root word as “casual.” Or, to put it more simply, accidents happen when things are taken casually. Even things like casual attire. If there is one thing that reveals how far American society has fallen, it is how far our dress standards have fallen. The prostitutes from years ago would blush at the sight of what many of today’s grade school and junior high girls wear to class every day. For generations, the Bible was our standard-bearer for how we dressed: modesty and contrast between the sexes were the standards, and these, by their very definition, implied dignity, beauty, and a demand for respect. Tragically, Hollywood and the music industry set our standards for dress today, and their lifestyles represent no limits, which brings - at its end - futility or madness. Look deep in the eyes of your average entertainer: they are empty, hollow, and lost. They are evil and self-loving; and you will see there no fear of God. Yet, most American moms and dads have few qualms about these type of people setting dress standards for their children.

Casual dress, I think, is a symptom of an un-serious culture. Casual Friday was as quickly embraced in America as shopping on Sunday - more convenient and more comfortable, thank you, and please don’t pester me about what God thinks of it. Many women today dress like, and, therefore, look like men, and many men dress like slobs or like boys. It’s no wonder we show little respect for each other: who respects a woman who looks like a man or who respects a grown man who doesn’t have enough dignity to dress like a grown man? By nature, we show more respect to people who dress more dignified. By nature, we treat females with more respect when they dress more feminine. By nature, we treat men with more respect when they dress masculine and dignified. I am saying things that used to be self evident to the average American. William F. Buckley, in a 1959 article titled “What To Do About Slovenly Dress?” in National Review magazine, wrote,

“Respectful or respectable dressing is a characteristic of adult society. Some
people are born gentlemen, other people acquire gentility during life, still
others must have it forced on them.”

Good luck. That was 1959. Imagine forcing such rules on this society. As Buckley also said, “Coat and- tie is merely a symbol. It could be courtesy; deference; reverence; humility; moderation…” Indeed it is. Should we be surprised then, that when we discard the coat and tie et. al. in our society that we find that “courtesy, deference, reverence, and humility” have strangely disappeared also? And they will
not return to their previous throne until our standards are elevated to their previous heights.

Can we not make the point from Ephesians 6 (though it is not the primary teaching of the text) that God wants his people sufficiently dressed and even dressed with dignity, by his command for the Christian “to take unto you the whole (as in completely dressed) armour of God…having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness…”? This is, of course, teaching of spiritual warfare, but I believe you can also make the case that if God dresses you fully for spiritual warfare, he would expect the same in every day life.
We understand, most of us, the principles of modesty and that there is to be a distinction between a man and a woman; which, the greater the distinction, the more dignity it brings to both male and female. Disagree? Then go attend a wedding and tell me I’m wrong. There you will see the bride arrayed in all of her female glory - adorned to the apotheosis of her femininity: bringing glory to God by glorifying her femininity and by making herself beautiful for her husband-to-be. Likewise the man,
who dresses to accentuate his masculinity to be as manly as he possibly can be for his new bride, and, whether he intends it or not, bringing glory to God by glorifying his maleness, and each, by contrasting so strongly and so beautifully their corresponding sexes, they glorify God together: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them…and
behold, it was very good.” (Gen. 1:27,31) God is glorified in contrast; man finds happiness in reflecting God’s glory. Most wedding picture frames encase two lovers with big smiles - because they are glorifying God.

In the Old Testament, the high-priests who attended the Temple were commanded to have a specific dress - dignified, ornamental, and metaphoric - that included eight sacred vestments that “without wearing the full number of his vestments, [the High-Priest’s] service would be invalid…” God believes in dignity and the more so the higher up you go. The High-Priest wore twice the garments as the ordinary priests and had “gold, the symbol of splendor, appear[ing] in them.” Holiness, high dress, and dignity are inseparable. David McCullough said in his great book, 1776, “…there was never any mistaking the impeccably uniformed, commanding figure of Washington, who looked always as if on parade.” On the day Washington took command, July 3rd, 1776, a young doctor, James Thatcher, witnessed the ceremony and said of Washington:

His Excellency was on horseback, in company with several military gentlemen. It was not difficult to distinguish him from all others. His personal appearance is truly noble and majestic, being tall and well proportioned. His dress is a blue coat with buff colored facings, a rich epaulet on each shoulder, buff underdress, and an elegant small sword, a black cockade in his hat.

The father of our country, perhaps, set the standard for generations to come on the dignity of dress. It remained strong and fairly consistent until the 1920s and still held respectably strong until the late ’60’s. Then the hippies, the anti-war crowd, and the sexual revolution gave us blue jeans, unkempt hair, and bad manners and destroyed - slowly but surely - the common social graces, children addressing
adults as “sir” and “mam,” and dressing with dignity and modesty. What had held strong for generations - like so many icons smashed by the 60s revolution - fell to pieces in a few short years. It ’s up to Christians to hold the line.

We turned into brutes after the Fall, which is why God dressed Adam and Eve right away -the eyes of fallen man are corrupted from looking on nakedness, and brutes are tamed somewhat by proper dress. Which is why dress has been an issue ever since the Fall: God understands the evil influence of nakedness - and so does Satan.
Our dress, I think, reflects many things about us, but most importantly it reflects our morals and our religion. Our dress is casual, an after-thought. It is slovenly, unkempt, and undignified. It reflects little respect for our fellow man and little respect for God. It’s a Christians duty to be a contrast to the world. Modesty and contrast between the sexes are vital standards to keep. They glorify God and are a lighthouse to a world descending quickly into the depravity of the savages. Dress is something God has more than a casual interest in - and has since the Garden.

A new Decalogue has been adopted by the neo-Christians of our day, the first word of which reads "Thou shalt not disagree;" and a new set of Beatitudes too, which begins "Blessed are they that tolerate everything, for they shall not be made accountable for anything." It is now the accepted thing to talk over religious differences in public with the understanding that no one will try to convert another or point out errors in his belief.

Imagine Moses agreeing to take part in a panel discussion with Israel over the golden calf; or Elijah engaging in a gentlemanly dialogue with the prophets of Baal. Or try to picture our Lord Jesus Christ seeking a meeting of the minds with the Pharisees to iron out differences.

The blessing of God is promised to the peacemaker, but the religious negotiator had better watch his step. Darkness and light can never be brought together by talk. Some things are not negotiable.

A.W. Tozer, Gems From Tozer, 47-48

“We have a clear choice between one of two diverging pathways, the road of
faith
or the road of human reason and unbelief. Do we begin with the Word of
God or do we begin with the word of men? This is the question and it has in the
first instance little to do with texts, but with the faithfulness of our God.

To decide these things we need only a believing heart and the ability to
read. Of course, textual scholars will deem all non-academics meddling in what
they regard as
their exclusive area of work unworthy to tie their bootlaces,
still less to steal their clothes! ... For it to be of any use, textual study
must be grounded upon what the Bible already says about itself.

If we do not begin with the Word of God, we shall never end with it!”

Christianity Today is the magazine of the Southern Baptist Convention. Read this article from The Berean Call:

In "A Life Formed in the Spirit," Christianity Today is once again celebrating Richard Foster's "legacy" -- which is one, unfortunately, of great heresy.

Failing to test the spirits, Foster followed his Quaker training in silence and meditation to reach an altered state of consciousness in which he believes to have met Jesus personally.

Sound bizarre? It should, but Foster taught this same meditative technique, step-by-step, in the first edition of "Celebration of Discipline," with the promise that if you visualize and focus on Jesus, it will be more than an exercise of the mind, and that Christ will literally, actually "come to you":

"[I]n your imagination allow your spiritual body, shining with light, to rise out of your physical body. Look back so that you can see yourself lying in the grass and reassure your body that you will return momentarily ... Go deeper and deeper into outer space until there is nothing except the warm presence of the eternal Creator. Rest in His presence."

In this same volume Foster boldly declared, "let us embrace the New Age with abandon" (paraphrase-need to confirm source). Both of these statements have been carefully excised in later editions in order to disarm objections to these anti-biblical references.

In spite of Foster's wholehearted embrace of shamanism and New Spirituality, he continues to be a celebrated "hero of the faith," championed by such publications as Christianity Today magazine, for which Foster serves as an "Advisory Editor."

What's interesting is that both Foster and Willard cut their teeth in the Quaker Friends Church, whose founder (George Fox) preached New Age Universalism -- and with which Foster and Willard have pollinated (polluted) the entire Body of Christ under the guise of "Spiritual Formation."

The "celebration" of this fact is proof positive of the Word of God, which prophesied, "in latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils" (1 Tim 4:1).

Foster should not be celebrated, nor his writings, but soundly rebuked by CT, and rejected by all who fear God.

But tragically, Christianity Today is simply walking in the footsteps of its founder, who "had nothing but praise for his long-time friend John Paul II and in particular for 'his strong Catholic faith.' Furthermore, [Graham] declared that there were no essential disagreements between them theologically."*

John Paul II was personally acquainted with the Dali Lama and allowed this self-worshiping "god-man" to place a statue of Buddah on the Catholic altar to perform prayer rituals at the church of St. Peter at Assisi.*

If Billy Graham and Foster are really in the TRUE faith (once delivered unto the saints), why have they united with false religions and encouraged the church to follow after other gods?

Again, this is fulfillment of 1 Tim 4:1, indicating that deception and apostasy are in full bloom, just as our Lord warned would be the first and foremost sign of the times before his return (Matthew 24:3-27).

For more on this story see "Hello Dalia" by T. A. McMahon.