The Great Evil of the Religious Lie

Paul Washer on the wickedness of Rome...

An important word on the need of sound Biblical Separation:

Paul Washer - The Religious Lie


Rand

Labels: Biblical Separation, Fundamentalism, Romanism

The Sad Legacies of Compromisers

the error of Jehoshaphat...

Interesting article on FoxNews.com:

Campus Ministry Drops 'Christ' From Name

I especially love these statements:

"We felt like our name was getting in the way of accomplishing our mission." (Wow!)

"Sellers said researchers found that 9 percent of Christians and 20 percent of non-Christians were alienated by the name Campus Crusade for Christ." (I laughed out loud when I read that one... 80% of Christians and 99.9% of non-Christians despise our evangelism)

"We were not trying to eliminate the word Christ from our name." (Thing is, you TOTALLY did!)

Bill Bright, the founder of Campus Crusade for Christ, was a compromiser who did away with any form of Biblical Separation, and eventually yoked himself and his ministry with Rome. It is fitting that his ministry, built on shaky foundation, is slowly crumbling, spiritually.

Wonder how long before Cru gets its first homosexual teacher/leader, or how long before it recognizes salvation through other names, not solely the Lord Jesus Christ.

Stay tuned.


Rand

Labels: Biblical Separation, Evangelism, Fundamentalism, Romanism, Stupid

Rand's " To Don't " List

just have to get this off my chest...


1- Don't think that watching/listening to Paul Washer sermons makes you a real "hot" Christian. There's a verse somewhere about being a doer, and not a hearer only.

2- If you are not actively and faithfully committed to evangelism, don't look down or criticize an evangelist; and that, even if you see a genuine fault. You'll just look like an idiot.

3- Don't start a blog with the words "Bible", "Christianity", "Holiness", "Truth", or "God" in the title if you are going to use much of your webspace commenting on Hollywood movies and/or carnal political issues.

4- Don't worship at the e-church. It isn't real.

5- Don't claim that it isn't God's will for your life to do something that you don't want to do; 'cause that's just stupid.

6- Don't make popes out of men like Ray Comfort, James White, John Piper, John MacArthur, or Charles Spurgeon. I'm pretty sure none of them would want to be idolized in any way, and the time and energy you put on following these men, you are not focusing on following God.

7- Don't quote Matthew 7:1 if you don't know Matthew 7:16-20 by heart.

8- Don't draw any spiritual comfort from academic or professional success or your position in any ministry/church. Plenty of pastors/deacons/bishops/elders/priests/successful leaders will one day be cast to the Lake of Fire.

9- Don't play (TV, sports, social event... etc) when there is a service at your local church, or some other ministry you could be helping out with. God is never pleased with vanity or laziness.

10- Don't think for one moment that you have attained. Don't believe for one second that you're a "spiritual somebody". I assure you, you're not.


Rand

Labels: Fundamentalism

Revival Conference 2008 - Audio Sermons

some good stuff to listen to...

For a number of years now, our home church organized "Revival Meetings" in the hopes that the Lord would revive His work in the midst of the years (Habakkuk 3:2). Basically, these meetings were an attempt to get our church membership to walk closer with the Lord through prayer, fasting, praise and worship as well as Bible preaching on revivals in the Bible.

Don't misunderstand... this wasn't a "charismatic-style" Christian party, or the seeking of some sort of "second blessing" from the Lord. I define "revival" as simply "a return to what saved saints of God should be". For example, if one looks at the revival is the days of Ezra (see Ezra 9 and Ezra 10), you won't read of a big band playing "I Will Magnify" with a large crowd waving their hands in the air. You won't read of believers becoming "super-believers" either. What you will read about is how those who feared God gathered and sought God's favour through a re-dedication to a life of obedience.

That's what my local assembly was up to last week.

The result? Don't know yet. Time will tell how profitable these meetings were. No doubt there was a lot of praying going on. No doubt we heard some very profitable sermons. No doubt we gave God glory through hymn worship and simply speaking of His awesome Person. Revival however, isn't only doing these things for a week of special meetings. The obedience and godliness must be on-going. So we'll wait on the Lord; that is, we will serve Him and look unto Him for His favour and blessing, hoping to receive a time of refreshing from Him.

There was a lot of good stuff going on last week, and as it always is with us fallen sinners, there was some bad. The prayer time, the preaching and the singing of Scripture songs were all a real blessing to my weary soul. We had the president of Georgia Baptist College and Seminary and pastor of Peachtree Baptist Church, Dr. David Dickerson preaching all the evening sermons and his sermons were excellent; here they are, and watch out for the "Southern-style" of preaching (lol):

Wednesday Evening Sermon - 1King 17 (To survive in days of apostasy: God's means of Grace)
Thursday Evening Sermon - 1King 18 (Active against adultery and immorality)
Friday Evening Sermon - 1King 18 (Bloody sacrifice)
Saturday Evening Sermon - 1King 19; Eph.6; 2Cor.10.3-5 (Spiritual warfare)
Sunday Morning Sermon - 1King 19 (Fruit of revival)

We were also blessed by the preaching of our head pastor, Tom Newton, our Quebec city evangelist and church planter, Marcel Longchamps, and a brother pastoring a small church in Dolgeville, New York, Scott Yager. Here are their sermons:

Pastor Tom Newton - 2 Chr. 7.14 (Turn from wicked ways: self-life)
Brother Marcel Longchamps - 2 Chr. 7.14 (Turn from wicked ways: Practical view)
Pastor Scott Yager - 2 Chr. 7.14 (Turn from wicked ways: Terminology view)

If you are truly evangelistic fundamentalists, dear readers, I'm sure you will all be blessed by these sermons, as I have been.


God bless you all, dear readers, and stay tuned, more posts to come...


Rand

Wilt thou not revive us again: that thy people may rejoice in thee? (Psalm 85:6)

Labels: Fundamentalism

What "Born-Again" Means! - Part III

Who's doing the work???

"Therefore say unto the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord GOD; I do not this for your sakes, O house of Israel, but for mine holy name's sake, which ye have profaned among the heathen, whither ye went. And I will sanctify my great name, which was profaned among the heathen, which ye have profaned in the midst of them; and the heathen shall know that I am the LORD, saith the Lord GOD, when I shall be sanctified in you before their eyes. For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land. Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them. And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be my people, and I will be your God." (Ezekiel 36:22-28)

The above passage of Scripture is actually what Nicodemus should have remembered when the Lord Jesus Christ taught him about the Second Birth. Nicodemus was a Pharisee, which meant he should have been quite familiar with the Old Testament. This is why the Lord, appalled by Nicodemus' ignorance said, in John 3:10: "Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?" Nicodemus should have remembered the passage in Ezekiel about being "cleansed with water", and receiving a "new spirit" when the Lord Jesus Christ spoke of "being born of water and the Spirit".

What we have in Ezekiel 36:22-28 is the salvation of Israel, nationally (which matches perfectly with the teachings of Romans 11). That is, all Jews, one day, will be gathered by God and brought into the land promised to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. God will give them the Second Birth, which is nothing short of being washed clean, receiving a new heart (or nature), and receiving the Holy Spirit. Sound familiar?

Now, notice something very important in Ezekiel 36: what part do the End-Time Jews have to play in being washed with water, receiving a new heart and the Holy Spirit? Do they have to repent? Do they have to 'accept Jesus as personal Saviour'? Do they have to recognize that they are sinners and Jesus died for them in order to be washed and receive 'the goods'? READ THE PASSAGE! The answer is obviously: NO! God makes it clear that all the Jews were, are and will be good for, in a spiritual sense (and this can be said of any other group of people) is profaning God's Holy Name! The picture isn't one of a nation repenting, exercising faith and then getting a favourable response from God; the picture is one of a Holy God, for His Holy Name's sakes alone takes an undeserving Nation and washes it clean, blesses it with a right disposition, and seals it with His Holy Spirit. The only part the End-Time Jews will play in all this is this: they'll receive God's grace. PERIOD.

Fast-forward back to John 3. This time, let us bear in mind what Nicodemus should have had in his mind: Ezekiel 36. Why didn't the Lord Jesus Christ tell Nicodemus what TO DO to be born-again after His statement in verse 3? Simple! There was nothing Nicodemus COULD do to be born-again, it wasn't his work to perform. It was/is/will be God's. Note verse 6 of John 3:

"That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."

The only "birth" that comes from Man is carnal; and that would be our physical births (from our mothers). Then note, "that which is born of the Spirit", that is, of God, "is spirit". If one is to be spiritually born, it will be the work of God, the Holy Spirit. Plus NOTHING! The second you add personal repentance, or faith, or confession, or whatever... YOU ARE ADDING TO SCRIPTURE. The Second Birth is God's work. It is initiated by Him. It is completed by Him. This is why, all over Scripture, we have incredible statements like:

"But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." (John 1:12-13)

"So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy." (Romans 9:16)

"According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved." (Ephesians 1:4-6)

"Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure." (Philippians 2:12-13)

"For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another. But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost." (Titus 3:3-5)

"Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures." (James 1:18)

So how does all this fit in with "salvation through faith in Christ Jesus alone" (which is clearly taught in the second half of John 3) ? Well, believe it or not, it does fit. Fits rather well too! But that will have to wait for part IV.


Rand

Labels: Doctrines of Grace, Fundamentalism

What "Born-Again" Means! - Part II

Christians should know...


"There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: the same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?" (John 3:1-4)


If you have spent any time at all in an evangelical church, you are very familiar with the above passage of Scripture. If you are not born-again, you don't go to Heaven. Crystal clear. It's with the verses that come next that things get more complicated...


"Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Nicodemus, to be born again, ye must repent of your sins and believe on me. If you believe on me and the work I will accomplish for you when I will be lifted up on a cross, then you will be born-again"


If you don't recognize the above verses in your versions of the Gospel of John, it's because the verses aren't there. I totally made it up. I fabricated those statements to fit how most Christians interpret the teachings found in John 3. You see, if my fabricated verses were verses 5 and 6 of John 3, then the 'Lifegate' website's article on how to be born-again would be 100% accurate; and I would be a heretic. Thing is, verses 5-8 don't say anything like my fabricated nonsense.


"Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit." (John 3:5-8)

What in the world is being said here? I will grant you, this is heavy stuff, so I can definitely understand the temptation to ignore verses 5-12 and skip straight to the statements on the necessity for faith in Christ Jesus to have eternal life; which is EXACTLY what most believers, EVEN FUNDAMENTALIST, EVEN FUNDAMENTALIST PASTORS do! Absolutely shocking! That's how we get Christians who call the 'Second Birth' and the 'Profession of Faith' synonyms.


They are NOT synonyms.


To understand this, one has to come to understand what the Lord Jesus Christ was actually saying in John 3:5-12. So let's figure this out. First thing I want you to notice, dear readers, is right after making His "no Second Birth, no Heaven" statement in verse 3, the Lord does NOT tell Nicodemus that he has TO DO anything to receive the Second Birth. This is important. You would think that after Nicodemus' question in verse 4, 'how can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?', the Lord would have told him to do this or that, but He doesn't.


Instead, we get some strange statements about 'being born of water and the Spirit', about 'things born of the flesh being flesh, and things born of the spirit is spirit', and something about 'the wind which no one sees, but that all can see its effects'. All very confusing for us, and it was clearly very confusing for Nicodemus also; that's why he said: "How can these things be?"

"Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?" (John 3:10)


As hard as John 3:5-8 is to understand for the layman, the fact of the matter is, it shouldn't have been too difficult for a Pharisee like Nicodemus. That's what we clearly get from the Lord Jesus Christ's reply to Nicodemus' question. So what is it that Nicodemus should have known? (and by extension, what is it that we should know?)


Stay tuned for Part III...




Rand

Labels: Doctrines of Grace, Fundamentalism

What "Born-Again" Means! - Part I

'cause way too many haven't the foggiest...

If you're an American, or if you've been anywhere near an Evangelical church, then you've heard the term: 'born-again Christian'. The label is all over the place now. Presidents George W. Bush and President Jimmy Carter both claim to be born-again Christians, and a whole socio-political movement made-up of so-called 'born-again Christians' is currently (and has been for a number of decades now) lobbying conservative political parties throughout the Western world for a Faith-friendly society. So everyone's heard of it, but, what is it?

It was missionary Paul Washer, in one of his sermons who said, (and I'm paraphrasing here): "One of the saddest things that has ever happened to North American society is that the term 'born-again Christian' has come to mean nothing." I couldn't agree more. 'Born-again' is being used today as cheaply as the word 'Christian'. In the unbelieving world, 'born-again' is used to describe a group of people who, at some point, have made some spiritual profession in an Evangelical ministry. This is pretty sad. What is sadder still though, is how most evangelicals today define the Second Birth.

Consider this website, picked somewhat randomly (I had a lot to choose from), which attempts to explain how one becomes a 'born-again Christian'. I believe the material on this page sums up rather well how most evangelicals' view of the Second Birth. In summary, this is how the Second Birth breaks down:

-Being 'born-again' is synonymous with being 'saved'.
-In order to be saved (and born-again), one must realize/admit that he/she is a sinner on his/her way to Hell.
-In order to be saved (and born-again), one must recognize and believe that Jesus died and shed His blood for his/her sins; that is, Jesus died as a substitute for him/her.
-In order to be saved (and born-again), one must put all this together and confess his/her sins, and call out to God in prayer for His mercy and grace.

Once these clear, easy steps are fulfilled, the soul is born-again. Everything the website mentions afterward are for "spiritual growth", that is, prayer, reading God's Word, witnessing for Christ and baptism. So, if one wants to be 'born-again', it's three simple steps. That's it, that's all!

If you're okay with all this, YOU'RE REALLY MESSED UP! If this shocks you... good! Consider this your wake-up call. Please understand, this isn't nit-picking some little detail, there is something FUNDAMENTALLY wrong with the position presented on the 'Lifegate' website. If you can't spot it, then I assure you, your understanding of the Second Birth is flawed to say the very least, and you really, really need to read Part II of this series of posts (which will be posted soon).

Now please, before hitting the "Comment" link, relax. Tons of Christians have, are and will be saved never really understanding the dynamic of the Second Birth. So while I may very well be saying that you don't understand the Second Birth, I am NOT necessarily saying that I do not believe you are saved. So take it easy, be Bereans and seek the Scriptures which deal with the Second Birth, meditate on these passages and perhaps you will see where this series is going.

Hint... hint... spend much time in the first eight verses of John 3, the first ten verses of Ephesians 2, and add a bit of James 1:16-18 while you're at it! Happy reading!


Rand

Labels: Doctrines of Grace, Fundamentalism

Romanism and Church History

Joe... this one is for you...


Unless I'm mistaken, it was Napoleon Bonaparte who said: "History are but a set of lies agreed upon." Now while I must say that with age, I have grown more and more cynical, Napoleon has got me beat in this category. That being said, I believe that there is some measure of truth to Napoleon's view. It's not that history can't be a source of great knowledge, it's just that, like all things, a lot depends on the user, and the provider.

To this very day, if you were to search through Romanist documents on the subject of the Reformation, you would find nothing but negative historical accounts of how terrible the Reformation was. Stories of people fearing Hell and being manipulated by some Protestant ogre who would leave these poor souls in torments over their spiritual state. I posted about such an account not too long ago. Strangely enough though, if you were to say, read documents from Protestant sources, and even totally secular sources on the Reformation, you would find a myriad of positive effects on Christianity and the even the public at large, all brought on by the Reformation. Hence, my statement: a lot depends on the user.

If we need to be wary of the user, just imagine how careful we must be before placing our faith in those from whom we receive our history lessons. As a Christian, the Bible is my premier historical resource. Why? Simple, it is a divinely preserved, perfect work. I need not worry about the Provider. He is altogether perfect. Any and all other historical resources are, at varying degrees, flawed... and that is why we must be careful what assumptions we formulate through these flawed resources.

To clarify my points so far, consider this simple example: Today, I have read some works about World War II, I've also read some online material on the student massacre at Tiananmen Square, and in my local newspaper, I've read about a 10 car pile-up on a local highway which claimed the lives of 10 people. Now suppose for a moment that this church age is to continue another 500 years, and let's fast forward those 500 years. I can pretty much guarantee you that, even 570 years after the fact, you will still find a treasury on information on World War II. Information on the Tiananmen Square massacre, on the other hand, will be quite sparse, but surely, something of this event will still exist even 520 years into the future. Now the 10 car pile-up I read of in my local paper, I assure you, dear readers, will be nowhere in any historical documents, 500 years later. Why? Again, simple: it wasn't a big enough deal to be recorded. It affected such a small portion of individuals (unlike WWII and the Tiananmen Square Massacre), that history simply forgot the albeit, major traffic accident.

My point: would it be fair then, for a futuristic historian (remember, we're still 500 years in the future) to claim that major traffic accidents simply didn't happen in the early 2000's? Or without going too melodramatic, would it be fair for our historian to claim that the accident I read of in my newspaper, never actually happened? Of course not. It would simply mean that major traffic accidents weren't frequent and catastrophic enough to be worthy of historical record.

Now, to the matter at hand. Romanism and church history. My friend Joe (who is directly responsible for this post) asked me: "If you believe that there are no Catholics alive who would make it to heaven, what about the time period between the Apostles and the Reformation? The Catholic (and Orthodox) Church was pretty much all we had." Okay, in his question, Joe makes an assumption. Do you see it?

"The Catholic (and Orthodox) Church was pretty much all we had."

With the above statement, Joe points out, quite accurately I might add, that those who labeled themselves as Christians, 1000-1700 years ago, would have been part of some form of the "Roman Catholic church", or one of it's Orthodox counterparts. Note that I have written "some form of", since these institutions have changed a lot over time, and without a doubt, the Romanists of today are a somewhat different beast than the Romanists of 1500 years ago (just as an example, "transubstantiation" wasn't in Romanist dogma until the Council of Trent in the 1500s). There is more in Joe's statement though than just a historical statistic. There is the assumption that these institutions were the ONLY "churches" that "we", meaning Christians, had. It is an assumption that would make the pope (and no doubt, the devil) proud.

This is where my introduction to this post fits in: the user and the provider. We'll start with the provider. I don't know where EXACTLY Joe got the information to base his assumption on, but it isn't too hard to figure out how one would come to this view. Want to see how? Just click on the link below...

Click Here!

If you don't understand the relevance of the link, let me explain. According to the pie chart over at Wikipedia, which is as secular as you can get, 33% of the world's population is Christian. Now that would mean that there are, presently, roughly 2.3 BILLION Christians in the world. I have only one thing to say about that: YEAH! RIGHT!!! Can you imagine the kingdom age we would be living in if we actually had 2.3 BILLION SAINTS IN THE WORLD??? No, no... everyone knows how outfits like Wikipedia get their numbers when it comes to faith statistics: the question "are you a Christian" is asked, and if the answer is "yes", then you're counted in. The fact that most of these "Christians" are living in fornication, are drunkards, and/or have never disturbed the centuries worth of dust on their Bibles bears ABSOLUTELY NO IMPACT on Wiki's statistics.

My point: Wiki doesn't care about what makes a genuine Christian, Christian. It's all about what the majority says; irregardless of whether what the majority says is true or not. Were 90-95% of those who called themselves Christians over 1000 years ago Romanists or Orthodox? More than likely. Does this mean that these were then, necessarily, all true, born-again saints of God? Of course not. Does this mean that God's people were then necessarily part of these "churches"? Nope. Genuine believers, with the exception of the great Old Testament and New Testament revivals have always been in the minority; and this minority could meet together anywhere, under any banner to worship and fellowship together. God has always been the Lord of a faithful REMNANT, not a vast majority.

"God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying, Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life. But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal. Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. (Romans 11:2-5)

In conclusion, and I hope my friend Joe doesn't take offence to this final aspect: the user. Joe isn't a fundamentalist (not by my definition of the word anyway), and I suspect that in the circles he fellowships in, the number of Christians in the world is far larger than the number I perceive. There is no point for Joe and I to argue about this, he probably has his mind made up, and I'm pretty convinced of my views as well. That said, one thing Joe cannot deny is this: his assumption of just how many people did and does God have in the world will greatly influence his view on church history, as my assumption will greatly influence my view of church history. If Christians, real Christians were fewer in number than the small numbers we have today, is it inconceivable that groups of Bible-only Christians did indeed exist throughout the Dark Ages, with history books largely ignoring their existence?

For the record, I have no problem confessing that there may have been many souls truly and honestly saved during the Dark Ages through pseudo-Romanist/Orthodox churches or other groups that have come and gone throughout the first millenium. Saving faith in Christ Jesus is what is required for salvation, not being part of a KJV-only, Baptism-by-immersion, Premillenial, Calvinistic, Baptist church (which couldn't and didn't exist). That said, we are told, in the Scriptures, that Jesus came into the world to save His people FROM their sin... not IN them. That is why when I am asked to believe that men and women who worshipped Mary and who bowed the knee to the papacy, were indeed saved believers... well, sorry... I find that totally inconsistent with the doctrines of the Word of God.

And that's my usual fundamental 0.02$,


Rand

Labels: Fundamentalism, Romanism

The Wicked, the Compromiser and the Fundamentalist (part IV)

my thoughts...

(Click here for Part I of this series)
(Click here for Part II of this series)
(Click here for Part III of this series)

I want to conclude my series on the interaction between Ahab, Jehoshaphat and Micaiah found in 1 Kings 9 and 2 Chronicles 18 with a few personal thoughts.

First, this account is EXTREMELY relevant to our present day situation. The world is full of Ahabs, and the vast majority of Christians are of the Jehoshaphat type. Without a shadow of a doubt. The Micaiahs are few and far between.

You don't buy it? Consider this: how many pastors did George W. Bush have in his corner to "justify" the Iraq war? How many Christian leaders "helped the ungodly" in matters they knew nothing about? From Jerry Falwell to John MacArthur, all went before the television cameras and proclaimed that they, and by extension, God, were with President Bush in his endeavour to defend America and liberate Iraq. All of them made affinity with the President and treated him as one with them; that is, a Christian. You could hardly find one single Micaiah who would state the absolutely truth about the Iraq situation: "I don't know anything about it, Mr. President, I'm not of this world, my citizenship is in Heaven." Still today, even with his evil fruit showing for all to see, it is difficult to find one Micaiah who will challenge the President's claim to be born-again. Unbelievable.

This is but one example out of many that show forth the complete lack of fundamentalism in the church today. By fundamentalism, I don't mean those who call themselves fundamentalists in the U.S.; for by in large, they are traditionalists, not fundamentalists. By fundamentalism, I mean being a Micaiah. Saying: "Thus saith the Lord", plus/minus NOTHING.

By fundamentalism, I mean being "doers of the word, and not hearers only" (James 1:22). "Doers the Word" don't waste time with Hollywood movies, ungodly TV shows, and vain activities.

By fundamentalism, I mean a boldness to "preach the word in season and out of season" (2 Timothy 4:2); and yes, that means you still have to preach when no one wants to hear it (that is, after all, what "out of season" means). And no, you are not fulfilling this charge by debating Calvinism in some internet forum.

By fundamentalism, I mean: "be ye separate" (2 Corinthians 6:17). If someone isn't preaching the Truth, or walking in the Truth... separate! Don't hang out with the wicked or with compromisers because it is a sure bet that before you make them into anything other than a wicked/compromising soul, they will make of you a wicked/compromising soul.

Do you find this too extreme? Too difficult? Consider Jehoshaphat and Micaiah again, and then consider which of these you really want to be. You can never attain unto Micaiah's reward without his manner of life. If you live like Jehoshaphat, you'll wind up with Jehoshaphat-type messes. Guaranteed. You will reap what you sow (Galatians 6:7)

Finally if, after reading this post, you've come to the conclusion that you are definitely NOT a Micaiah, and you want to do something about it... well... get serious! You have the Bible, now just do it! Don't look to the right or to the left, and remember: it isn't only the Ahabs you should be wary of. The Jehoshaphats of the present will cause you nothing but grief, and will be no help to you at all. Jehoshaphats, while ultimately saved by grace, are compromisers and all they will encourage you to do in the end, is compromise.

I'm not saying that any of this is easy, nor am I suggesting that I have attained unto some "Super-Micaiah-Christian" status. It is however my daily aim, and by making it my objective, I often have success in being a true fundamentalist for the Truth. There is a cost associated with this though: loss of Christian friends, family troubles, being seen as an obstinate non-conformist... etc. I have, by God's grace (and on numerous occasions now), paid that price.

Have you?


Rand

"Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light." (Matthew 11:28-30)

Labels: Biblical Separation, Fundamentalism, Holiness

The Wicked, the Compromiser and the Fundamentalist (part III)

counting the cost...

(Click here for Part I of this series)
(Click here for Part II of this series)

Every action has its consequences; whether they be good or evil. In this post, we will have a look to see what the consequences of Ahab's (the wicked), Jehoshaphat's (the compromiser), and Micaiah's (the fundamentalist) actions were. I will probably hold off on making some final comments or sharing some final thoughts on this series until part IV. For now then, consider what:

-Ahab reaped:

First off, Ahab died. He died at the hands of the Syrian army in Ramoth-gilead; exactly as the prophet Micaiah had foretold. Despite all his scheming and his great skills as a warrior, Ahab was slained by an arrow, fired totally at random:

"And a certain man drew a bow at a venture, and smote the king of Israel between the joints of the harness: therefore he said to his chariot man, Turn thine hand, that thou mayest carry me out of the host; for I am wounded." (2 Chronicles 18:33)

Ahab, the wicked, lived a life of rebellion against God; a life totally devoted to sin. He therefore collected the wages of sin, which is death; both physical, and spiritual (Romans 6:23). Sadly, it didn't end there. Ahab's wife, Jezebel, also met a brutal death:

"And as Jehu entered in at the gate, she said, Had Zimri peace, who slew his master? And he lifted up his face to the window, and said, Who is on my side? who? And there looked out to him two or three eunuchs. And he said, Throw her down. So they threw her down: and some of her blood was sprinkled on the wall, and on the horses: and he trode her under foot." (2 Kings 9:31-33)

Yep, the wicked woman was thrown out of a window and trampled under foot, and we are told a little further that the prophecy of Elijah came true about her: wild dogs ate her body. Not a pretty picture.

Now, if you are wondering who Jehu is, in the above passage, let me explain. You see, the curse God put on Ahab for all his wickedness didn't affect only him and his idolatrous wife, it affected his son. Ahab's son, Joram, lost the Northern Kingdom of Israel to a man God had chosen to destroy the entire house of Abab, Jehu. Not only did Joram lose his kingdom, he lost his life:

"And Jehu drew a bow with his full strength, and smote Jehoram between his arms, and the arrow went out at his heart, and he sunk down in his chariot." (2 Kings 9:24)

Death, loss and destruction. That about sums up the consequences of Ahab's way of life.


-Jehoshaphat reaped:

The compromising believer who refused to heed to the prophecy of a faithful prophet, and allied himself with the wicked wretch Ahab, was bailed out of trouble on numerous occasions, but his losses were GREAT. Consider this foolishness Jehoshaphat got himself into:

"And the king of Israel said unto Jehoshaphat, I will disguise myself, and will go to the battle; but put thou on thy robes. So the king of Israel disguised himself; and they went to the battle. Now the king of Syria had commanded the captains of the chariots that were with him, saying, Fight ye not with small or great, save only with the king of Israel. And it came to pass, when the captains of the chariots saw Jehoshaphat, that they said, It is the king of Israel. Therefore they compassed about him to fight: but Jehoshaphat cried out, and the LORD helped him; and God moved them to depart from him." (2 Chronicles 18:29-31)

Don't ask me how a man can be so foolish... but all this happened. King Jehoshaphat probably lost a lot of his soldiers in this doomed campaign. You'd think he would have learned his lesson, especially when we consider that he got a serious scolding from a prophet of the Lord upon his return to Jerusalem, but no, the Bible records that Jehoshaphat really hadn't learned anything. Ahab wasn't long dead that Jehoshaphat formed an alliance with the new king of the Northern Kingdom, Ahaziah:

"And after this did Jehoshaphat king of Judah join himself with Ahaziah king of Israel, who did very wickedly: And he joined himself with him to make ships to go to Tarshish: and they made the ships in Eziongeber. Then Eliezer the son of Dodavah of Mareshah prophesied against Jehoshaphat, saying, Because thou hast joined thyself with Ahaziah, the LORD hath broken thy works. And the ships were broken, that they were not able to go to Tarshish." (2 Chronicles 20:35-37)

Losing these ships probably hurt king Jehoshaphat in capital, since Tarshish was very far away (large, expensive ships were probably built and subsequently destroyed by the Lord). So, because of Jehoshaphat's compromises with the wicked, he was responsible for loss of life in Ramoth-gilead, and the loss of money in Ezion-geber.

It doesn't end there.

Remember how Jehoshaphat and Ahab got together? Jehoshaphat's son, Jehoram married one of Ahab's daughters. You want to venture a guess what kind of man Jehoram became?

"Now when Jehoram was risen up to the kingdom of his father, he strengthened himself, and slew all his brethren with the sword, and divers also of the princes of Israel... And he walked in the way of the kings of Israel, like as did the house of Ahab: for he had the daughter of Ahab to wife: and he wrought that which was evil in the eyes of the LORD... Moreover he made high places in the mountains of Judah, and caused the inhabitants of Jerusalem to commit fornication, and compelled Judah thereto." (2 Chronicles 21:4, 6, 11)

And for all his evil, the Lord plagued Jehoram. Two years he suffered of an incurable bowel disease, and then he died.

Not exactly a great legacy for king Jehoshaphat. Compromise costs. It costs big.


-Micaiah reaped:

Other than his incarceration in Ahab's dungeon in Samaria, we know nothing of Micahiah's earthly fate. There is a good chance Micaiah never got out of the dungeon; king Ahab ordered that Micaiah be kept in jail until his safe return (something that never happened).

Now let's suppose Micaiah spent the rest of his days in a Samaritan dungeon. Day-in and day-out, eating the bread of affliction and the water of affliction (2 Chronicles 18:26).

Not much fun.

Then consider what Micaiah saw right after he had breathed his last! What do you think the righteous Lord of the Earth, "who will render to every man according to his deeds" (Romans 2:6), had in store for Micaiah? Do you think Micaiah, when entering in the presence of his God, had any regrets about his fundamental conversation on the Earth?

I don't think so!


As you can see, none of our three characters had an easy time, but only one of the souls suffered for righteousness sake. Stay tuned for part IV of this series, for a few final thoughts...

Rand

Labels: Biblical Separation, Fundamentalism, Holiness

The Wicked, the Compromiser and the Fundamentalist (part II)

watch out for life's Ahabs...

As mentioned in the first post of this series, king Ahab of Israel knew he didn't have a chance to vanquish the southern kingdom of Judah, so instead of picking a fight with king Jehoshaphat, Ahab became Jehoshaphat's buddy. The two kings, despite their differences in matters of faith, became such good friends, they allied themselves together through the marriage of Jehoshaphat's son and Ahab's daughter. Look at this folly:

"Now Jehoshaphat had riches and honour in abundance, and joined affinity with Ahab. And after certain years he went down to Ahab to Samaria. And Ahab killed sheep and oxen for him in abundance, and for the people: that he had with him, and persuaded him to go up with him to Ramothgilead. And Ahab king of Israel said unto Jehoshaphat king of Judah, Wilt thou go with me to Ramothgilead? And he answered him, I am as thou art, and my people as thy people; and we will be with thee in the war." (2 Chronicles 18:2-3)

You know what I think of whenever I read the above Text? I think of the countless e-mails and comments I have received from Romanists. "We are brothers," they claim, and yet, just like Ahab, they are as black as sin itself. "We'll war together against abortion, the homosexual agenda, and other social policies," they say, all the while worshiping before wood and stone.

So foolish Jehoshaphat who had been so wise in guarding his kingdom against the idolaters to the North in the beginning, had now let the king of the North in by the back door. He was now having feasts with the most ungodly king in Israel's history, and making plans to go on military campaigns with him. Foolish indeed, but remember, Jehoshaphat was a saved man (as we saw in part I of this series). Being one of God's saints, Jehoshaphat asked Ahab to inquire of the Lord through prophets in order to see if God wanted the men to go to war together against the Syrians in Ramoth-gilead. A practice that was "a must" amongst all godly kings in Judah. Ahab happily indulged:

"Therefore the king of Israel gathered together of prophets four hundred men, and said unto them, Shall we go to Ramothgilead to battle, or shall I forbear? And they said, Go up; for God will deliver it into the king's hand." (2 Chronicles 18:5)

Now Jehoshaphat was compromising and was being a "Class A" fool by aligning himself with wicked Ahab, but he wasn't down right stupid. It was clear to Jehoshaphat that Ahab was presenting him with four hundred "yes men", not prophets of the Lord. That's why Jehoshaphat in the following verse asked Ahab if there was "another prophet" they could inquire of. Ahab reluctantly mentioned the name of a prophet who "never prophesied good of him", a prophet called Micaiah (a prophet not prophesying good of an evil king... sounds promising doesn't it?).

Enter Micaiah. After being warned by Ahab's minions not to prophecy evil of the king, for such a prophecy would surely bring sharp condemnation, Micaiah stands before Ahab and Jehoshaphat and tells them EXACTLY what Ahab wanted to hear. He said:

"Go ye up, and prosper, and they shall be delivered into your hand." (2 Chronicles 18:14b)

Now it was Ahab's turn to prove that while he was an exceeding evil man, he wasn't down right stupid either. Ahab knew that this prophecy was just to good to be true, especially considering the source. That's why Ahab in the following verse charges Micaiah to stop fooling around a tell the truth. So Micaiah gave him the truth:

"Then he said, I did see all Israel scattered upon the mountains, as sheep that have no shepherd: and the LORD said, These have no master; let them return therefore every man to his house in peace." (2 Chronicles 18:16)

Micaiah even went further. Telling both kings that the Lord had sent a lying spirit, a demon no doubt, to entice Ahab into going into battle against the Syrians. A battle that would go very badly for Israel and would lead to the death of king Ahab. Ahab, of course, didn't like this revised prophecy, and right before king Jehoshaphat eyes, Micaiah's brother-in-the-Lord, had Micaiah sent to the dungeon; and there he would stay until Ahab's supposed return.

So just to be clear, let's recap Jehoshaphat's less than stellar decisions in our Text:

-he arranged a marriage between his son and Ahab's daughter, effectively bringing both families together.
-he visited wicked king Ahab to have feasts with him.
-he disregarded the prophecy of the Lord, warning of the folly of attacking the Syrians.
-he watched a fellow brother-in-the-Lord be persecuted and thrown in prison, and the Scriptures do not record him doing anything about it!

In part III, will study the consequences of Ahab's, Jehoshaphat's and Micaiah's actions... see you then...


Rand

Labels: Biblical Separation, Fundamentalism, Holiness

The Wicked, the Compromiser and the Fundamentalist (Part I)

considerations from 2 Chronicles...

(To get the most out of this post, it will be necessary for you to read 2 Chronicles chapter 17 to chapter 21 and verse 7)

In a series of sermons on the topic of the revivals in the kingdom of Judah, my pastor shared with us this most relevant teaching from the book of 2 Chronicles. The account under review involves, primarily, three men: Ahab (king of Israel), Jehoshaphat (king of Judah), and Micaiah (prophet of the Lord). Now while Judah is a tribe of Israel, the complete kingdom of Israel was split due to a civil war which had taken place roughly 50 years prior to the action of our Text. Judah and Benjamin, two of the twelve tribes of Israel formed a kingdom to the South, while the other ten tribes formed another kingdom to the North.

The Lord was, without a doubt, with the Southern kingdom; the Lord gave Judah several godly kings which led the nation towards God. The Northern kingdom didn't get one, single godly king; all of them were wicked wretches which led the 10 tribes into the ways of the heathen, that is, to idolatry. In the portion of Scripture we are currently studying, we have this fact presented clearly. Consider king Ahab of Israel and king Jehoshaphat of Judah:

"And Ahab the son of Omri did evil in the sight of the LORD above all that were before him. And it came to pass, as if it had been a light thing for him to walk in the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, that he took to wife Jezebel the daughter of Ethbaal king of the Zidonians, and went and served Baal, and worshipped him. And he reared up an altar for Baal in the house of Baal, which he had built in Samaria. And Ahab made a grove; and Ahab did more to provoke the LORD God of Israel to anger than all the kings of Israel that were before him." (1 Kings 16:30-33)

"And the LORD was with Jehoshaphat, because he walked in the first ways of his father David, and sought not unto Baalim; But sought to the LORD God of his father, and walked in his commandments, and not after the doings of Israel. Therefore the LORD stablished the kingdom in his hand; and all Judah brought to Jehoshaphat presents; and he had riches and honour in abundance." (2 Chronicles 17:3-5)

Naturally, king Jehoshaphat was leery of evil king Ahab. After years of civil war between the North and the South, Jehoshaphat knew better than to trust Ahab. He knew that if Ahab had the chance, he would surely attempt to conquer Judah in order to set himself as king over all twelve tribes of Israel. That's why Jehoshaphat wisely prepared Judah against Ahab, by directing the priests, the soldiers, and building up defences:

"And they (priests and Levites) taught in Judah, and had the book of the law of the LORD with them, and went about throughout all the cities of Judah, and taught the people. And the fear of the LORD fell upon all the kingdoms of the lands that were round about Judah, so that they made no war against Jehoshaphat... And Jehoshaphat waxed great exceedingly; and he built in Judah castles, and cities of store. And he had much business in the cities of Judah: and the men of war, mighty men of valour, were in Jerusalem... These waited on the king, beside those whom the king put in the fenced cities throughout all Judah." (2 Chronicles 17:9-10, 12-13, and 19)

Without a doubt, when Ahab and his armies looked down at the kingdom of Judah, the temptation to go up for a fight wasn't too strong. You think Iraq today is a quagmire? Attacking Judah in those days would have been a disaster! Jehoshaphat had done his job right. By submitting himself to God and His commandments, the Lord gave him wisdom and protection from all his enemies.

All was well in godly Judah, but evil Ahab wasn't the type to give up so easily. The man was thoroughly evil, but he was no idiot. He knew that there was no way to beat Jehoshaphat militarily, so Ahab went by the back door. Ahab here is a perfect type of the devil himself. If the devil can't beat a saint one way, you can rest assured he will try to beat him another way.

Ahab wasn't going to destroy Judah by the sword; rather, he would destroy it with handshake...

(To be continued)


Rand

Labels: Biblical Separation, Fundamentalism, Holiness

Why I Have Nothing To Do With Ecumenical Efforts

blame it on holiness...

Context: I received this e-mail a few days ago:

Labels: Biblical Separation, Fundamentalism, Holiness

A Plea for Fundamentalism

how serious are you about The Faith?

Fundamentalism: A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.

This definition, taken from the "American Heritage Dictionary", draws a pretty clear picture; and for most, the picture isn't too attractive. The first thing people today think about when they hear "fundamentalism" is usually "Islamic fundamentalism" and the terrorism associated with it; which explains the stigma associated with fundamentalism. Unfortunately, in this particular case, the problem isn't with fundamentalism, but rather with Islam. You see the thing about fundamentalism is that the fundamentalist is either "fundamentally right", or "fundamentally wrong". If a person errs in the fundamentals (like in the case of Islam), everything that is based on that foundation will be wrong.

Now as born-again Christians, we have THE TRUTH, the Word of the Living God: the Bible. That is our foundation, our "fundamentals". The Lord Jesus Christ even made it unbelievably easy for us by summarizing the fundamentals of the Christian faith in two simple commandments:

"Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." (Matthew 22: 37-39)

No room for "jihad", suicide bombings, or plane hijackings here. These are the fundamentals of the Christian fundamentalist; he loves God with everything he's got, and he loves and cares for his neighbour as himself.

Now the question is: are you a Christian fundamentalist? Is it the God of the Bible + nothing for you? Do you make it a point, in your life, to glorify God in all you do and all you say? Do you love your neighbour as yourself? Do you love him enough to be a witness to him? To be there when he needs a helping hand?

The fact of the matter is most Christians today (and this is a personal observation), aren't fundamentalists. They're not even close.

Oh! they love God enough to go to the Lord's Day morning service, but you'll never see them darken the door posts of the church for the evening service or the mid-week prayer meeting/bible study. They love God enough to stay away from pornography and drugs, but they see no problem with watching R-rated movies (for violence, nudity, coarse language...etc), and giving up the "pubs" with the buddies is completely out of the question (even if one doesn't drink to the point of drunkenness, "bars" and "pubs" are no place for God's children).

And as far as "loving their neighbours" is concerned, they'll be there for them in times of trouble, to give a helping hand, but for the most part, it's the "don't bug me, I won't bug you" attitude. Many Christians don't even bother sharing the gospel with their neighbours for fear of ridicule or persecution (this is probably the biggest lack of caring and love...Withholding the gospel that could save them).

Most Christians know for a fact that the church was in much better shape 50-60 years ago, and that is why so many want the old days again. The problem is, they want the "old days", but they don't want the "old ways". Wasn't so long ago that a Christian didn't watch Hollywood's filth at the cinemas; wasn't too long ago, the Christian influence in the US was so strong, they actually outlawed alcohol and the bars/pubs that supplied the drunkards; wasn't too long ago that Christians didn't shop or do business on the Lord's Day, they'd rather keep the day holy unto the Lord. These are but a few examples of the differences in attitude between the Christian in the days when the church was strong, and the "modern" day Christian.

So, I ask again: are you a fundamentalist?

Labels: Biblical Separation, Fundamentalism, Holiness