Have You been to the Pig Pen Lately?

"Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and He will lift you up." - James 4:10

The story is told of a rich man who lay stricken with illness and certain of approaching death. Although he had never before had any regard for spiritual matters in his life, when the specter of death loomed large before him he began to fear for the destiny of his soul, and summoned one of his slaves, a man whom he knew to be a devout Christian.

"I am dying and afraid that I will be lost," the rich man explained when the slave came to his room. "Please tell me what I need to do to be saved."

The slave thought for a moment and replied, "Sir, you will need to get up and go down and kneel in the pig pen, confess your sins to God, and ask His pardon."

"You can't mean that," the rich man said. "Please don't joke with me. I'm dying and I fear being lost for eternity. Tell me what I must do!"

But once again the slave replied, "I've told you, sir. You need to go down to the pig pen."

Angry and incredulous, the rich man sent the slave away that afternoon. But it wasn't long before his thoughts again turned to his eternal destiny. Sleep fled from him. Visions of damnation paraded before his mind's eye. Again he sent for the slave, only to receive the same reply: "If you want to be saved, sir, you'll need to go kneel down in the pig pen, confess your sins to God, and ask His pardon." The rich man pleaded and threatened, but the servant remained inflexible, and again the rich man sent the slave away.

Finally, when the rich man felt his strength ebbing and his anguish threatened to to overwhelm him, he summoned his slave and relented in tears. "You win," he told the slave, "help me up. If I have to go kneel down in the pig pen to be saved, I'll do it. I'll do it."

But as the rich man struggled to rise from his sick bed, the slave placed a hand on his shoulder and smiled down at him. "You don't really have to go down to the pig pen, sir. You just have to be willing to."

I first heard this story as a child, and have often reflected on it in the years since. I find it an apt illustration of why so few in our society are ready to do business with God. Oh, there is no shortage of people who dream of Heaven, and it's clear that most of them expect to make it there by virtue of some good they've done or some evil they've avoided. In the American mindset, God is always ready to play "Let's Make a Deal" with all but the very worst of us, for no other apparent reason than He is the ultimate nice guy. Our society is full of people who think this way.

Hell is full of people who thought that way.

The truth of the matter is that God is terrifyingly holy. His justice is real. His wrath is not just something we read about in quaint Old Testament stories; it is a real thing, and for those outside of His grace, an inevitable thing (Revelation 20:11-15). When He says, "The soul that sins, it shall die," (Ezekiel 18:20) you can be sure that He means it. Play games with the Almighty, my friend, and you will lose - certainly and eternally (Matthew 25:46). Yes, God is full of mercy, patience and compassion (Psalm 86:15) - a thousand times, yes! In fact, the Bible tells us that His compassions do not fail, that they are "new every morning" (Lamentations 3:22-23), and for this we praise Him. But it is equally true that He will not put up with anyone who tries to make a mockery of Him (Galatians 6:7), and one way in which we mock Him most often is by coming to Him with a heart full of pride. I've actually heard people say that when they stand before God, they'll "tell Him how it is."

Really? Scripture makes it clear that no one who gets a glimpse of God can stand before Him in arrogance:

- Exodus chapters 19-20 recount how God descended upon Mount Sinai "in fire," and with the sound of trumpet blast, causing the mountain to shake. This so frightened the Hebrews that they backed away from the mountain and begged Moses to go up and talk to God for them, "but let not God speak with us, lest we die." (20:19).

- In Isaiah 6:1-5, the prophet Isaiah tells us of the following vision he had of God:

"In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, high and lifted up, and the train of His robe filled the temple. Above it stood seraphim; each one had six wings: with two he covered his face, with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. And one cried to another and said: 'Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts; The whole earth is full of His glory!' And the posts of the door were shaken by the voice of him who cried out, and the house was filled with smoke. So I said: 'Woe is me, for I am undone! Because I am a man of unclean lips, And I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; For my eyes have seen the King, The LORD of hosts.'"

- In Revelation, chapter 1, the apostle John records a vision of the glorified Jesus Christ, remarking that, "when I saw Him, I fell at His feet as dead."

- In Revelation 6:14-17, at the breaking of the sixth seal, John records the following:

"Then the sky receded as a scroll when it is rolled up, and every mountain and island was moved out of its place. And the kings of the earth, the great men, the rich men, the commanders, the mighty men, every slave and every free man, hid themselves in the caves and in the rocks of the mountains, and said to the mountains and rocks, 'Fall on us and hide us from the face of Him who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb! For the great day of His wrath has come, and who is able to stand?'"

These are but a few glimpses of the One whom some flippantly call "the Old Man Upstairs," the One whose name they defile as a curse word, the One before whom they think they'll strut and smart-off, the same One before whose face the Bible says, "the earth and the heaven fled away. And there was found no place for them." (Revelation 20:11)

Friends, as the slave in the story of the dying rich man understood, if we are to come to God, we must do so in utmost humility. We must recognize our sinfulness and unworthiness, and cast ourselves upon His mercy. Until we're ready to kneel in the pig pen before Him, as it were, we are not ready to know Him and receive anything from Him. Indeed, in God's sight, we're already in the pig pen and covered with its grime. In Isaiah 64:6, the Bible tells us that: "We are all like an unclean thing, And all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags; We all fade as a leaf, And our iniquities, like the wind, Have taken us away."

The Word of God is clear: everything we consider best about ourselves, all of which we would brag about before God, is, in His sight, filth; and until we see this, we are in no position to receive His mercy.

We live in what is perhaps one of the most arrogant generations in human history. As a civilization, we have come to trust in our technology, our self-perceived cleverness and sophistication. We think of ourselves as something special, perhaps as the Christians in the ancient city of Laodicea once saw themselves. And yet, what did God think of them?

Revelation 3:17 - "You say, 'I am rich, have become wealthy, and have need of nothing'—and do not know that you are wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked—"

In spite of this, however, the Lord stands ready to forgive. He tells us how we appear in His sight and how we compare with Him, not to trample us under His feet but to bring us to the place where He can wash us and raise us up:

Revelation 3:18-21 - "I counsel you to buy from Me gold refined in the fire, that you may be rich; and white garments, that you may be clothed, that the shame of your nakedness may not be revealed; and anoint your eyes with eye salve, that you may see. As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten. Therefore be zealous and repent. Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me. To him who overcomes I will grant to sit with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne."

James 4:8-10 - "Draw near to God and He will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners; and purify your hearts, you double-minded. Lament and mourn and weep! Let your laughter be turned to mourning and your joy to gloom. Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and He will lift you up."

Psalm 34:18 - "The LORD is near to those who have a broken heart, And saves such as have a contrite spirit."

Psalm 51:17 - "The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit, A broken and a contrite heart— These, O God, You will not despise."

Proverbs 3:34 - "Surely He scorns the scornful, But gives grace to the humble."

And so the question I would ask is this: have you ever been to the pig pen? Do you expect God to receive you because of who you are? Because of something you've done of which you're especially proud? Because others view you as such a good person? Because of social status? Because you haven't "done anything all that bad"? Because you deserve Heaven somehow?

If so, you are on dangerous ground, my friend. God is no respecter of persons. He stands ready, even eager, to save you; but before He can do so you must first admit your sinfulness before Him and your inability to save yourself. Accept the blood of Jesus Christ that was shed on your behalf as the only means by which you can be declared "not-guilty" before God:

II Corinthians 5:21 - "He made the One who did not know sin to be sin for us, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him."

But the pig pen is not only for those who have never come to the Savior, as even those of us who know Him can sometimes be found strutting vainly through life like the Laodicean believers, confident in our own self-sufficiency, forgetting the lowly state in which He found us - mired in sin, condemned to eternal punishment, without hope but for the mercy extended to us by the grace of the Lord Jesus, and helpless to please Him even now without His power working through us (John 15:5). May we pray that God will examine our hearts and, if there is such pride there, that He will make it evident to us and cause us to repent, that we might be rich in His sight and clothed in the white garments that only He can give.

The Kingdom of the Cults

"The Kingdom of the Cults," written by the late Dr. Walter Martin, is considered the master work where cults, their histories and beliefs are concerned. In it, Martin covers everything from Jehovah's Witnesses to the Mormons to Theosophy. Highly recommended!

"It is I, be not afraid," by A. B. Simpson

When the storm was fiercely raging
On the Lake of Galilee,
And their helpless bark was tossing
On the wild, tempestuous seas,
Walking on the raging waters
In a robe of light arrayed,
Jesus came, oh, hear Him calling-
It is I, be not afraid!"

When the storms of life are raging,
And the night is long and drear,
When our strength is spent with toiling,
And our spirit sinks with fear,
Oft again we see Him coming,
Swiftly hastening to our aid;
Often still we hear Him calling -
"It is I, be not afraid!"

When the night of death shall lower,
And the Jordan's surges roll,
When the hour and power of darkness
Overwhelm the sinking soul,
Then above the raging billows,
And might's deepest, darkest shade,
We shall hear Him calling to us -
"It is I, be not afraid!"

Evangelical leaders sign a statement equating Allah, the Muslim god, with Yahweh, the Christian God

A "who's who" of evangelical Christian leaders, including Rick Warren, Robert Schuller, Brian McLaren, Richard Cizik and Bill Hybels, have signed a letter to the Muslim community entitled "Loving God And Neighbor Together" that openly equates Allah with the Christian God. This letter was in response to an open letter from 138 prominent Islamic leaders entitled "A Common Word between Us and You" which stressed that the "unity of God" is "thus the common ground between Islam and Christianity."

Both of these letters again and again talk of "God" as if both Christians and Muslims recognize and worship the exact same being.

To read the rest of this article, go here: http://thefinalhour.blogspot.com/2009/09/evangelical-whos-who-sign-letter.html

Paul Washer - A Sermon that may Shock You

The following video is a hard-hitting look at the state of the church in America today and the deception of believing that merely saying a prayer assures you of Heaven. Is Jesus really Lord of your life, or just a figurehead? Is your life changing? Do you love the things that God hates?

1 John 2:15-17 - "Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that [is] in the world--the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life--is not of the Father but is of the world. And the world is passing away, and the lust of it; but he who does the will of God abides forever."

Answers in Revelation - Bible Prophecy Site

Answers in Revelation.org is, by far, the best Bible prophecy site that I have found on the Internet. It's packed with great articles on topics such as the Rapture and the Millennium, features an audio teaching series on the book of Revelation, and also hosts some debates on topics like Preterism vs. Historical Premillennialism. Check it out and get ready for some solid Bible exposition:

http://www.answersinrevelation.org

"Wonderful, Merciful Savior," by Selah

Documentary - "Aquarius: the Age of Evil"

"Aquarius: the Age of Evil," is a Christian documentary on the roots of the New Age and New World Order movements. It covers recent movements such as "Zeitgeist," as well as prominent new age figures such as Benjamin Creme of Share International. Well-researched and highly-recommended for anyone who wishes to know more about New Age philosophy and the spiritual goals of the coming push for a New World Order.

Lord I Lift Your Name On High - a great worship song, basically the gospel in miniature

Why would a Perfect God Require Worship?

Recently, while browsing various discussions on a religious question-and-answer forum, I came across some questions from atheists in regard to the worship of God. The questions varied in form and emphasis, but the bottom line was this: “If God really created everything and is all-powerful, why does He want us to worship Him? He can’t possibly need anything from us, so is this call for worship really just some sort of divine ego-trip?”

And while most of the questions I’ve referenced were really little more than thinly disguised rants against theism in general and Christianity in particular, the core question itself is entirely reasonable. Why, indeed, should an all-powerful God desire anything from the likes of little ‘ole mortal me, including worship?

For that matter, what do we mean when we speak of worshiping God? What are we really talking about?

The Definition of Worship

The word worship appears 112 times in 105 verses in the New King James Version. In the Old Testament, the word translated into English as worship is the Hebrew word shachah, which, according to Strong’s Concordance, means: “to bow down, prostrate oneself before a superior in homage.” In the New Testament, the word translated worship is the Greek word proskyneō. According to Strong’s, proskyneō means:

1. To kiss the hand to (towards) one, in token of reverence
2. Among the Orientals, esp. the Persians, to fall upon the knees and touch the ground with the forehead as an expression of profound reverence
3. In the NT by kneeling or prostration to do homage (to one) or make obeisance, whether in order to express respect or to make supplication

As we can see from the word usage in both the Old and New Testaments, to worship means to reverence or pay homage to one’s superior, including the idea of physically prostrating oneself, just as a man would bow before his king when responding to a summons or requesting some special favor.

But why would God wish us to do this? How does it benefit Him to see us prostrate ourselves before Him? Does it give Him pleasure to see us humbled just for the sake of it?

The Perspective for Worship

In order to understand the necessity of worship, we must first reflect upon two important aspects of God’s nature and character, as well as a central truth about the creation in general:

1. God is not a glorified man (Num 23:19). Although we are made in His image and often tend to view Him in human terms, He is altogether higher than us and different from us (Isa 55:9). His nature is perfect, uncorrupted. He cannot sin. He is absolutely holy (Lev 11:45). Whatever He commands, or whatever action He takes, He does so in perfect righteousness (Isaiah 45:21, Psalms 25:8, 45:6, and 89:14).

2. In the words of the old hymn, “This is my Father’s world.” All things that exist were created by Him and for Him (John 1:3, Col 1:16). As His creations, we belong to Him (Psalm 24:1, Romans 14:8). All good things come through Him (Matt 5:45, James 1:17), and He must ultimately judge all men according to the standard that is His own holy character (Romans 2:7, Jude 1:14-15, Rev 22:12).

The Purpose of Worship

So what do these facts teach us about worship?

First, as the Creator of all things, the One who gives us life, the One in whose image we are made, the only perfect being there is, God is deserving of our veneration. The glory for these things rightfully belongs to Him, and He has declared that He will not share that glory with anyone else (Isaiah 42:8).

Atheists often read a declaration like this and react to it as if God has a fragile ego that requires continual maintenance. They see him as a pompous tyrant, lounging about on the throne of the universe, commanding that men grovel before Him or else be consigned to hell; but this is because they make the mistake of seeing God as a glorified man. They attribute the tendencies of corrupted human nature to Him, including the desire to “lord it” over others for the sheer sake of doing so. But God is not a man; He does not suffer from our limited perspective or our fallen nature. He does not call for our veneration out of arrogant self-indulgence. On the contrary, by calling for our worship, He is defending that which is rightfully His; and He does this because to do otherwise would be to suppress the truth of who He is and what He has done. It would result in unjustly lowering Himself and elevating man.

Thus, the call to worship is a call to acknowledge God for who He is and what He has done.

To credit the sculpture of "David" to someone other than Michelangelo would be to rob the artist of the credit that is due him, just as it would be to rob Milton by attributing "Paradise Lost" to another author, or to credit the "Mona Lisa" to someone other than DaVinci. In the same way, to credit our moral sense to ourselves, or the universe to unintelligent matter-in-motion, or to exalt ourselves and our reason to the throne room of the temple of wisdom, is to rob the creator, author, and artist of all things of the credit that is due Him. It is, in a very real sense, to steal what is rightfully His. It's not that we're giving something to God by worshiping Him, it's that we’re acknowledging what is already rightfully His by the simple virtue of who He is. There's an enormous difference between giving something to someone and taking what they already have and what is theirs by right.

Secondly, God requires us to worship Him out of His love for us. This may sound somewhat counter-intuitive at first, but consider:

A loving parent cares for his children, in part, by helping them to see the world for what it is and to focus on those things that are truly important, thus providing them with the perspective required for them to succeed in life.

In the same way, by requiring that man's focus be on Him, God is endeavoring to provide us with an accurate view of the universe and our place in it, without which would we surely delude ourselves, spend our lives in futility, and ultimately pass into condemnation in the next life (Romans 1:18-32).

For if there truly is a God who created us, loves us, wants what is best for us, and must ultimately call us into judgment, how could He allow us to wander in delusion and futility? How could He not call us to focus on Himself? What could be better than knowing Him and acknowledging Him for who He is and what He has done? What are our life's pursuits, our petty squabbles over this and that, and our desire to possess things that we "can't take with us" and that will ultimately decay, in comparison to knowing the Highest and embracing what He has for us? If we do have souls that survive our bodies, if we will be judged, and if our continued lives in the next world are truly eternal, would it not be better for us to think of that coming world and to prepare for it as best we're able, rather than spending our time, thoughts and resources on things that are perishable?

How many people have spent their lives in pursuit of the pleasures of the moment: money, fame, power, knowledge, acceptance, sexual gratification, etc., always on the look-out for new thrills, new acquisitions, new relationships, new experiences with which to “complete” themselves...and for what? What lasting value did they acquire? In the end, no matter who they were in terms of human esteem, they went the way of the lowliest of men: into eternity, unable to take anything with them, to stand before the One with whom there is no favoritism.

Matthew 6:19-21: "Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal; but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." 

Matthew 16:26 – “For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?” 

Luke 12:16-21 – “Then He spoke a parable to them, saying: ‘The ground of a certain rich man yielded plentifully. And he thought within himself, saying, 'What shall I do, since I have no room to store my crops?' So he said, 'I will do this: I will pull down my barns and build greater, and there I will store all my crops and my goods. And I will say to my soul, "Soul, you have many goods laid up for many years; take your ease; eat, drink, [and] be merry." ' But God said to him, 'Fool! This night your soul will be required of you; then whose will those things be which you have provided?' "So [is] he who lays up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God.’"

In summary, worship is not something that God needs to complete Himself, nor is it a divine ego-trip. The call for worship is a call to humble ourselves in the sight of God, to recognize Him for who He is and what He has done, to acknowledge who and what we are in comparison to Him, to submit our wills to His sovereignty, and to focus on that which is truly important and of lasting value in both this world and the next.

Revelation 5:11-14 – “Then I looked, and I heard the voice of many angels around the throne, the living creatures, and the elders; and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands, saying with a loud voice: ‘Worthy is the Lamb who was slain To receive power and riches and wisdom, And strength and honor and glory and blessing!’ And every creature which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, I heard saying: ‘Blessing and honor and glory and power [Be] to Him who sits on the throne, And to the Lamb, forever and ever!’ Then the four living creatures said, ‘Amen!’ And the twenty-four elders fell down and worshiped Him who lives forever and ever.”

Book review: "The Pre-Wrath Rapture of the Church," by Marvin J. Rosenthal

Of all the doctrinal topics that divide evangelical Christians, the study of Eschatology ("last things" or end-times prophecy) is surely one of the most polarizing, particularly where it touches on the "rapture" of the church. While evangelicals believe that Jesus Christ will personally, physically return to the earth someday, and that He will literally "catch-away" His believers at some point before setting up His Millennial reign, there is a great deal of disagreement as to exactly when these events will take place, or whether they truly are separate events at all. Pre-tribulationists insist that Christ will rapture His church prior to the beginning of the seven-year "Tribulation period," also known as the "70th Week of Daniel." Mid-tribulationists, as their name implies, see the rapture occurring in the middle of the 70th Week. Pre-wrath adherents see the rapture taking place at some point during the last three-and-one-half years of the 70th Week, just prior to the period of time when God will begin pouring out His wrath on Antichrist's world kingdom. Finally, post-tribulationists see the rapture taking place at the same time as the glorious appearing of Christ, which all four viewpoints agree takes place at the very end of the 70th Week.

Like many Christians, including myself, Marvin J. Rosenthal was once a card-carrying member of the pre-tribulationist school, the viewpoint which has dominated evangelical Christianity for the last century (see the best-selling "Left Behind" books for a fictionalized version of this eschatological timeline). In time, however, as he studied the topic in greater depth, Rosenthal came to believe that pre-tribulation rapturism was fatally flawed, and he began to re-evaluate prophetic teachings in search of the truth behind the rapture question. The "Pre-Wrath Rapture of the Church" is the culmination of that effort; and, while I do not agree with Rosenthal's conclusions in total, I would argue that he has made a valuable contribution to the rapture debate.

Points of agreement:

The most effective aspect of "The Pre-wrath Rapture" is Rosenthal's critique of pre-tribulation rapturism, and this alone is enough to recommend the book.

Rosenthal brilliantly debunks pre-tribulation rapturism. He demonstrates that the "Day of the Lord" (the final out-pouring of God's wrath on Antichrist's kingdom) is not the entire 70th Week of Daniel (nor the Millennial Kingdom, as some contend). He does so by citing Joel 2:31, in which the Day of the Lord (DOTL) is described as beginning with very specific cosmic signs: the sun is darkened, the moon turns red as blood, and the heavens and the earth are "shaken." Rosenthal shows that these signs are the same as those described by Jesus in Matthew 24:29, and those that follow the opening of the 6th seal in Revelation 6:12, an event that takes place deep within the 70th Week. Additionally, Rosenthal points out the fact that both Christ and the Apostle Paul (see Matthew 24 and II Thessalonians 2:3) taught that four events must precede the rapture of the church, namely the "coming of Elijah," a "falling away" (a mass apostasy), the revelation of Antichrist (the "man of sin"), and the cosmic signs of the DOTL, thus destroying the central pre-trib pillar of "imminence," (the idea that the rapture could happen "at any moment," with no prophesied events preceding it).

Rosenthal develops these points with excellent exegesis and logic and, in my opinion, utterly devastates pre-tribulation rapturism. Toward the end of the book, he takes time to evaluate a number of common pre-trib arguments, and does so effectively.

Where Rosenthal fails, I believe, is in his attempt to establish a pre-wrath rapture.

Points of disagreement:

Rosenthal teaches that the rapture will occur at some point during the second half of the 70th Week, immediately following a time of intense persecution known as "the Great Tribulation," and in conjunction with the signs marking the DOTL (the 6th seal in Revelation), but prior to the actual out-pouring of the wrath. This, Rosenthal tells us, is consistent with the promise of scripture that Christians are not "appointed to wrath" (I Thessalonians 5:9). He presents the "great multitude" of Revelation chapter 7 as the raptured church in Heaven.

And while Rosenthal comes very close to the truth, unfortunately, certain assumptions cause him to deviate into theologically indefensible territory.

Scripture very clearly teaches one, visible second coming of Christ in glory. Rosenthal gets it right when he says, "Not once does the Bible speak of two comings -- not even by hint or implication," (p. 229); nevertheless, he maintains that the second coming includes the rapture, the DOTL, and Christ's final appearance in the clouds, all of which, in his view, necessitate a "coming" that lasts for an extended period of time. However, just as there are no passages that teach multiple comings, there are no passages that teach a prolonged coming or a coming in stages. Rather, the Bible teaches that the rapture will take place when Christ appears in glory, at which point He will be visible to the whole world.

In Matthew 24, the famous "Olivet Discourse," Christ's disciples asked Him, "What will be the sign of Your coming [singular], and of the end of the age?" (NASB) Christ proceeded to answer their question without correcting their assumption that He would come only once more. Indeed, He tells them not to be deceived but to watch for the DOTL signs (verse 29), which He says will come, "after the tribulation of those days". If you read the passage, you'll see that this is a reference to the "Great Tribulation," the persecution that will follow Antichrist's desecration of the Jewish Temple and his demand to be worshiped as God.

Matthew 24:30-33 - "And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the SON OF MAN COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF THE SKY with power and great glory. And He will send forth His angels with A GREAT TRUMPET and THEY WILL GATHER TOGETHER His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other." (NASB)

Notice that Christ says He will gather His elect at His visible coming, and notice how this language compares to that of the Apostle Paul in I Thessalonians 4:15-17 -

"For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord." (NASB)

And in II Thessalonians 2:1-3 -

"Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him...Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction." (NASB)

Consider that, in both of his famous rapture passages, Paul refers to a singular coming of Christ, and how he attaches our "catching-up" and "gathering to Him" with that one event. The language of II Thess 2:1 is especially telling in its reference to "the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering to Him." According to the rules of Greek grammar, when you have two nouns of the same case (in this instance, "coming" and "gathering"), connected by the word Kai ("and" in English), and the first is preceded by a definite article but the second is not, the nouns should be grouped together (for another example, see Titus 2:13-14, where "the great God and our Saviour" both refer to Jesus Christ).

Clearly, the glorious appearing of Christ and the rapture are simultaneous events, meaning that the rapture must take place at the end of the 70th Week (thus it is post-tribulational). To argue otherwise, one has to obscure or twist the very plain meaning of the passages in Matthew 24 and II Thessalonians. For further evidence, consider that, in the account of Christ's ascension into heaven in Acts 1, the angels that appeared to His disciples told them, "This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven." (NASB) And in Revelation 1:7, John tells us: "Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him." (KJV) These important scriptures also support one visible, physical return of Christ to the earth in glory.

In regard to the wrath of God, I fully agree with Rosenthal that Christians will be exempt from it (I Thess. 5:9); however, I cannot find any teaching in scripture that says that Christians will be removed from the earth during it. No secret coming or coming in stages is taught. Nor does this promise for deliverance require the removal of Christians in order to be valid. God is able to protect His people from the effects of His wrath during the 70th Week, just as He protected Noah and his family from the great flood, and just as he protected the Hebrews living in the land of Goshen from the plagues of Egypt.

I must also disagree with Rosenthal where the great apostasy of II Thessalonians 2 is concerned. Rosenthal states that this will be a Jewish apostasy in that the nation of Israel will place its faith in the promises of Antichrist (as it once turned to Antiochus Epiphanes), whereas I believe that this passage is speaking of a general apostasy among believers. Rosenthal justifies his view with four main points: 1) that the only other time "apostasy" is used in the NT is in reference to the Jews (Acts 21:20), 2) that the Greek in II Thessalonians 2 has the definite article, thus making it "The Apostasy," and the Jews historically referred to the time when many of them allied with Antiochus Epiphanes as "The Apostasy," 3) that those Paul warns Timothy will "depart from the faith" in the latter times (see 1 Timothy 4:1-2) are not apostates but false teachers, and 4) that if believers can apostatize "then the doctrine of the eternal security of the believer in this age must be seriously questioned. And that cannot be allowed to stand." (p. 199).

In reply, I would point out the following:

1. In the days of Antiochus Epiphanes, when "The Apostasy" occurred, the Jews were the "people of God." Since then, the gentiles have been "grafted in," and thus the equation has changed (Galatians 3:8 "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." KJV) Furthermore, the Apostle Paul does not specifically apply this future apostasy to the Jews, thus the burden of proof is on Rosenthal to establish that it only applies to them, and he is not able to do so compellingly. Indeed, by Paul's time the Jewish nation as a whole was already apostate in that it had rejected Jesus Christ as the Messiah. This is still the case today, so I find it necessary to ask how an already fallen nation could experience a great apostasy (this would be like arguing that people standing in the rain will, at some future point, get wet).

2. Paul used the definite article in II Thessalonians 2 because he is referring to a specific, major future event, not some "nebulous apostasy at the end of this age," as Rosenthal argues. This is one of the poorest arguments in the book.

3. The Greek word translated as "depart from the faith" in I Timothy 4:1 is "aphistemi," not "apostasia," as Rosenthal says; however, if you check these words in a concordance, you will find that they are extremely similar in meaning. Even so, there is no reason why a genuine apostasy cannot take place in addition to the emergence of false teaching; indeed, false teachings may in part lead to the apostasy.

4. Rosenthal says that challenges to the doctrine of eternal security cannot be allowed to stand; however, I find it ironic that many evangelical Christians feel the same way about pre-tribulationism, which Rosenthal is openly challenging in this book. For that reason, it seems odd to me that Rosenthal would ask us to thoughtfully consider a challenge to pre-tribulationism, but eternal security should not be questioned at all. Not only is this intellectually dishonest, but, as it happens, there are good reasons to question to the doctrine of eternal security (Visit the Pristine Faith Restoration Society's position papers on eternal security for a discussion of the problems with this doctrine: http://www.pfrs.org/osas/index.html).

Rosenthal does address post-tribulationism on a few occasions, but his critiques are brief and seem to be based on the writings of those who don't defend it very well. For example:

First, Rosenthal claims that the fact that the church is not mentioned in Revelation chapters 4-21 is a problem for the post-trib view (p. 224). Yet, what Rosenthal does not appear to consider is that his argument assumes a strictly earthly focus; since the church isn't mentioned by name where earthly matters are concerned, he concludes that it cannot be present there. Unfortunately for Rosenthal, however, this argument cuts both ways; for, if the church is in Heaven at some point between chapters 4-21, it is not mentioned by name there either (including the "great multitude" passage of Revelation 7, which Rosenthal views as depicting the raptured church)! Thus, if the presence of the church can only be established by an express use of that one term, we cannot find it at all in chapters 4-21, and so it could be anywhere.

However, while the church is not mentioned by that specific term in chapters 4-21, there are other references that are equally applicable to believers, such as "saints" (Paul greets the "saints" many times in his epistles), and the "saints" are clearly depicted as being located on the earth (note that Antichrist makes war against them in Revelation 13:7). We also find references to those who "keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ," in Revelation 12, and it is clear that they are also on the earth, as the "dragon" (Satan) makes war against them after he and his demons are cast out of Heaven. In Revelation 18:4, when Babylon is about to be destroyed, God warns "my people" to "come out of her" lest they share in her destruction. And finally, in Revelation 19:7, immediately before heaven is opened and Christ appears, we're told that "the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready." As most Christians know, the church is often called "the bride of Christ," so why is it that the bride is not said to be ready until Revelation 19 if she has been raptured in Revelation 7? And who is God calling out of Babylon? It might be argued that these references to Christians on earth during the Great Tribulation apply to a special group of "Tribulation Saints," but this argument assumes the church has been removed prior to the Great Tribulation, it does not prove that this is so.

Second, Rosenthal appeals to the argument that, if the rapture occurs at the end of the 70th Week, then it would be possible to know the day of Christ's coming (1260 days after the Abomination of Desolation), whereas Matthew 24 tells us that "no man knows the day or the hour." (p. 248) This seems like a compelling argument at first, but it falls apart under careful scrutiny:

1. If you view Matthew 24's description of Christ's "gathering" His elect as a rapture passage, which is certainly the most obvious reading, then you must also equate the glorious appearing to the rapture (since Christ said that unbelievers would see Him coming at that time, something that doesn't happen until the glorious appearing). However, in order for Rosenthal's objection to succeed, one must separate the rapture and the glorious appearing by a fairly lengthy span of time. The problem here is that Christ did not do this; on the contrary, He made it clear that the "tribes of the earth" would see Him coming and would mourn, and *then* (the text implies that it happens right away) He will "gather together His elect." He mentions no delay from the time that He becomes visible to those who dwell on the earth, until the gathering of the elect begins, and there is no natural or compelling reason (aside from the defense of doctrine) to insert such a delay in this passage.

Indeed, there is no reason to draw the DOTL out over a lengthy period of time, either. Scripture gives every indication that the day is a literal 24-hour day, not an indefinite span of time. Consider Revelation 6:12-17. In this passage, the 6th seal is opened, the DOTL signs are given, heaven is opened, and the "kings of the earth, and the great men" call for the rocks and mountains to fall of them and hide them from the Lord: "For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?" This fits quite naturally with Matthew 24:30 and Revelation 1:7, in which we are told that the tribes of the earth will mourn when they see Christ coming in glory (an event which is, once again, connected with the rapture). Also, consider Zechariah 14:6-8, where we are told that the day of the Lord shall be "one day which shall be known to the Lord," and that "at evening time it shall be light." This language can only be applicable to a literal calendar day.

2. As Christ said in Matthew 24, it is not possible at the present time ("no man knows" - present tense) to know the day or hour of His glorious appearing; however, it will be possible to know this day in the future. Again, given the fact that the Abomination of Desolation occurs precisely at the mid-point of the 70th Week, that leaves three-and-one-half years (1260 days) until the glorious appearing. Therefore, anyone who observes the Abomination will be able to calculate the date of the glorious appearing (although they still will not know the hour. Note that Christ emphasized the hour even more than the day in Matthew 24).

I could go on, but I think that the points I've listed constitute the most glaring problems with "The Pre-wrath Rapture of the Church."

In summary, Rosenthal does a wonderful job of critiquing pre-tribulation rapturism, and, I might add, does so in a humble and gracious fashion. However, he falls short of proving a pre-wrath rapture, mostly due to the fact that the Bible so clearly links Christ's appearing in glory to the "catching-up" of His saints. For a thorough presentation of the post-tribulation rapture view, I would again recommend the very fine work done by the Pristine Faith Restoration Society, and particularly by its founder, Pastor Tim Warner.

The Higher Powers: Martial Law vs Christian Responsibility

The "Higher Powers": Martial Law vs. Christian Responsibility

It is one thing to know something intellectually, and quite another to see it suddenly happen before your eyes. I experienced such a moment in 2005, during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, when I watched (via the Internet) as police officers went door-to-door in New Orleans neighborhoods, forced law-abiding citizens into the streets, cuffed them, and then searched their homes for firearms before leaving them bewildered and helpless. There were no warrants involved. No probable cause was mentioned. No charges of wrong-doing were filed. Intimidation and brute force were the order of the day. And as much as I wish I could believe otherwise, I’m afraid that what we saw in New Orleans is merely a preview of coming attractions.

Since September 11, 2001, the federal government has been busily advancing preparations for the day when it might impose martial law throughout the United States, thus presenting us with the specter of the sort of thugery we witnessed in New Orleans being carried out all across this “land of the free.” A quasi-legal apparatus has already been put into place for this, via such legislation as the PATRIOT Act, the John Warner Defense Authorization Act, the Military Commissions Act, and the National Security and Homeland Security Directive. But legislation, although important in creating the illusion of legitimacy, is only one of the two boots with which the authoritarian state tramples freedom; the other is propaganda, and it is even more essential than force because it allows the state to conquer by stealth, and thus with a minimum of effort.

The state that employs only force to achieve its aims will rule only as long as it can subdue the people; but if it can successfully use propaganda, it can rule indefinitely because the people will subdue themselves. Propaganda deludes the slave into seeing his servitude as sacrifice, even as an honor. It transforms political prisoners into the enemies of the people, turns massacres into purgings, makes partisanism look like saintly perseverance, sells torture as retribution, portrays dissent as sabotage, and masks aggression in the guise of crusading. As Adolf Hitler observed in Mein Kampf, “By an able and persistent use of propaganda heaven itself can be presented to the people as if it were hell and, vice versa, the most miserable kind of life can be presented as if it were paradise."

And of all the varied forms of propaganda, religious propaganda is by far the most effective; for, it provides fallible men with the sanction of heaven, which must not be resisted nor even questioned. Our government is well aware of this and, from all indications, is ready to use religious propaganda in order to help pacify the American population in the event that martial law is declared.

For years, rumors circulated to the effect that the U.S. government would use members of the clergy in efforts to pacify Americans should martial law ever be declared. Many scoffed at the idea, calling it so much conspiracy theory nonsense. Then, in 2007, KSLA Channel 12 in Shreveport, Louisiana, reported that, following Hurricane Katrina, “clergy response teams” were utilized to assist the government with public relations (click here to watch the video). According to the story, such teams will likely be used in future emergency situations, with an emphasis on their potential role in a martial law scenario. Here’s a quote from the story:

Such clergy response teams would walk a tight-rope during martial law between the demands of the government on the one side, versus the wishes of the public on the other. “In a lot of cases, these clergy would already be known in the neighborhoods in which they’re helping to diffuse that situation,” assured Sandy Davis. He serves as the director of the Caddo-Bossier Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness.

A member of one such clergy response team, Dr. Durell Tuberville, was interviewed by KSLA, and stated that Christians have a responsibility to obey the government, no matter what. “The government’s established by the Lord,” said Tuberville. “That’s what we believe in the Christian faith. That’s what’s stated in the scripture.

As a Christian myself, I understand where people like Dr. Tuberville are coming from. I remember my ninth grade Government teacher telling our class (Christian school, mind you) that Soviet citizens had no right to defy their government because, no matter how oppressive the Soviet State was, it was “ordained by God” (when asked about whether the American patriots were right to rebel against England, however, he equivocated). This reasoning is based on several passages of scripture, but particularly on the following remarks made by the Apostle Paul in Romans, chapter 13 (as the KSLA news story pointed out):

Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience’ sake.

With these things in mind, I’d like to take some time to examine the issue of how Christians should react to the prospect of martial law in America.

Government officials are not the highest “authorities” in America

The first thing I would like to point out to people like Dr. Tuberville, who think Christians should obey government officials no matter what because they are “the higher powers,” is that there is another, yet higher power to which even such officials are beholden: the Constitution of the United States.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land. Article VI, Section 1.

It is from the Constitution that our elected officials, both federal and state, derive their office and legitimate powers. Their powers are delegated, not inherent; concrete, not elastic, and, as clearly set forth by the 9^th and 10^th Amendments, they are limited to the specific areas of authority that the Constitution either grants to the Union or denies to the states. Further, our elected officials are “bound by oath or affirmation” to support the Constitution and its provisions, including the limitations placed upon their own powers:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution… (Article VI, Section 3).

Thus, in taking up the powers and responsibilities of political office, our elected officials are also agreeing to place themselves under the law. This is one of the foundational ideas of the American political system: the concept that everyone is under law and equal in its eyes. For this reason, if government officials violate the Constitution, their actions are illegal and void of authority, and they are no better than common criminals. It is absolutely critical that Christians understand this when they contemplate their relationship to the government. Our elected officials are not the source of their own power; rather, they are representatives who have been entrusted with the authority of the American people as defined in the United States Constitution. If they violate that trust, they are as much criminals as the guy who robs your local 7-11 store; they just dress better, make other people use the guns, and almost never go to jail.

Martial Law is Unconstitutional and, therefore, Illegal

The Constitution does not directly address martial law; however, it does contain a provision that clearly makes martial law impossible. Consider Article IV, Section IV:

The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

Republican government is civil, representative government; martial law is military rule. Since the former is specifically guaranteed here, the latter is necessarily precluded. This provision, which our government officials are sworn to support as being part of the supreme law of the land, makes martial law unconstitutional and thus illegal. The moment that martial law is declared, the federal government will have stepped outside of its sphere of lawful powers. In fact, in a very real way it will have conducted a revolution, as it will have overthrown the legitimate government of the Constitution by force of arms.

The President is Commander in Chief, not Dictator in Chief

The “war powers” of the President are a woefully misunderstood aspect of constitutional law, thanks primarily to the success of Abraham Lincoln’s war and further developments under those who inherited his theory of government. Said theory boils down to the idea that, technically, anything the government does in order to “safe-guard” the country (really its own power) is constitutional.

The Constitution itself differs with that idea. It describes the “war powers” of the President in Article II, Section II, where we read:

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States.

That’s it. That is the sum total of all the Constitution has to say about the war powers of the President. Everything else that has developed since the adoption of the Constitution where such powers are concerned, from ‘peace-keeping’ missions to covert operations, is extra-constitutional (and largely a perversion of the war powers the Constitution grants to Congress in Article I). Indeed, the military powers that presidents exercise today would have seemed kingly to our country’s founders. Under the American system, presidents were to be limited chief executives, not self-empowering monarchs who could overthrow the rights of the people or commit the country’s military to action for any reason whatsoever. The history of centuries of blood-letting under the crowned heads of Europe had taught Americans better than to trust such powers in the hands of one individual. They forgot that lesson rather quickly once they were free to determine their own affairs, but that initial understanding is enshrined in the Constitution’s language to this day, and the reasoning behind it is still just as sound.

The Commander in Chief clause, read as it is plainly written, gives the President authority to act as a sort of commanding general of all U.S. armed forces in their constitutional role of providing for the common defense. It makes him a unifying military leader, capable of coordinating the country’s defenses in order to repel an aggressor; it does not make him a dictator, nor does it authorize him to use the military offensively or for law enforcement purposes. Note that the authority granted in Article II, Section II is military, not civilian, and that it does not release the President from his sworn duty to uphold the Constitution, nor does it revoke the right of the states to a republican form of government.

In response, some will undoubtedly argue that we now face dangers that our country’s founders could not have envisioned, and, for that reason, certain things must change. But the founders provided us with a means of changing the Constitution in the face of new circumstances or new wishes on the part of the people. We call this provision the “Amendment Process” (see Article V). So why is it that our leaders are not using this legitimate, constitutional tool, if indeed they believe that they require additional powers in order to meet modern challenges, and if indeed their motives are pure? Defenders of the Bush administration and its congressional allies (particularly Christians seeking to invoke Romans 13) should give serious thought to this question.

Consider that nearly seven years have elapsed since the September 11, 2001 attacks, and yet, in all that time, in spite of all the powers that Bush and Congress have usurped, they have not once prepared or even suggested a constitutional amendment to legitimize any of it. And the reason for this? Quite simply, they don’t believe they need to legitimize their actions. They do not recognize any authority above themselves, neither the Constitution of the United States nor the people who elected them.

Beware Government Agents quoting Scripture

The common perception of propaganda is that it is the art of telling lies, but in fact lies are only part of the picture. No, the true master of propaganda is skilled not only in telling outright lies, but also in employing distortion and half-truth.

For an example of this, consider Romans 13 again. The standard snake oil sold by the Dr. Tuberville’s of the world (unwittingly or not), where this passage is concerned, is that government is the “higher power” and must be obeyed in all things. This is what you’re likely to hear when a clergy response team member shows up on your doorstep, flanked by national guardsmen and demanding that you hand over your firearms, supplies, and/or valuables, or that you accompany them to Hotel Halliburton. Yet, as we have already seen, the Constitution, not the government, is the highest “power” in the United States of America, and those who act outside of it are criminals.

Note also that the Apostle Paul was arguing that Christians should support the “higher powers” because government is ordained by God to be “an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.” “Rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior,” Paul tells us, “but for evil,” after which he admonishes us to be “in subjection not only because of wrath, but also for conscience’ sake.” So what then of a government which, instead of punishing evil, actually practices evil itself? Can Paul have been suggesting that Christians should view the evil actions of a lawless power as somehow bearing the approval of God? Can a Christian either condone or submit to evil doings “for conscience’ sake”? Is it possible to do good by sanctioning, submitting to, or participating in evil? As Paul himself was fond of saying, “God forbid!”

When in Rome?

At this point, some might argue that the Roman Empire was evil in many ways, and that if Paul informed Christians that they needed to be in subjection to such a regime, surely today’s Christians have no excuse for resisting the will of the U.S. government, constitutional questions aside. And while I would agree that Rome was certainly a ruthless and brutal government, there are three important things that should be kept in view here:

1) Rome did not rule under a supreme Constitution such as we have.

2) While Paul instructed Christians to recognize Roman rule, he never once suggested that they should sanction or participate in Roman brutality. Indeed, the Bible contains a number of passages that instruct us to aid the oppressed (not to aid in their oppression):

Proverbs 24:10-12: “If you are slack [weak, feeble] in the day of distress, your strength is limited. Deliver those who are being taken away to death, and those who are staggering to slaughter, Oh hold {them} back. If you say, "See, we did not know this," Does He not consider {it} who weighs the hearts? And does He not know {it} who keeps your soul? And will He not render to man according to his work?”

Isaiah 1:16-17: “Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean; Remove the evil of your deeds from My sight. Cease to do evil, Learn to do good; Seek justice, Reprove the ruthless, Defend the orphan, Plead for the widow.”

Jeremiah 21:12: “O house of David, thus says the LORD: ‘Administer justice every morning; And deliver the {person} who has been robbed from the power of {his} oppressor, that My wrath may not go forth like fire and burn with none to extinguish {it,} because of the evil of their deeds.’”

Jeremiah 22:2-3: “Thus says the LORD, ‘Do justice and righteousness, and deliver the one who has been robbed from the power of {his} oppressor. Also do not mistreat {or} do violence to the stranger, the orphan, or the widow; and do not shed innocent blood in this place.’”

The above passages make it clear that no one who claims to fear God should have anything to do with oppressing the innocent; but, rather, they should actively “reprove” those who do such things and “deliver” those who are being victimized. Genesis 14 tells the story of how Abraham attacked and overcame a group of kings who had taken his nephew, Lot, captive; and, in Job 29, we’re told that, among the good deeds Job was known for, he “delivered the poor who cried for help, and the orphan who had no helper,” and “broke the jaws of the wicked and snatched the prey from his teeth.” The Bible refers to both Abraham and Job as “righteous” and “upright.” Further, in I Timothy 5:8, the Apostle Paul, who wrote Romans 13, remarks: “But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” Surely “providing” for one’s own involves protecting them from those who would do them harm.

3) Two recorded instances from the Apostle Paul’s own life demonstrate that a Christian need not submit to injustice simply because it is perpetrated by agents of the state. Both examples come to us from the book of Acts.

The first is recorded in Acts 22, where Roman authorities questioned Paul in relation to his part in a riot that had just taken place in Jerusalem. Not satisfied with his answers, the Roman chief captain ordered that Paul be subjected to a bit of enhanced interrogation, 1^st Century style (they were going to scourge him while questioning him further). Now, Paul was a Roman citizen, and under Roman law it was illegal to scourge a citizen. Paul pointed this out to his captors in Acts 22:23, and was spared the torture in favor of a trial.

The second example comes from Acts 25. Paul, who was then on trial before Porcius Festus, the Roman governor of Judea, saw that the governor was probably not going to give him a fair trial, and so he invoked the supreme right of a Roman citizen: he appealed to Caesar himself in hope of justice. He did this respectfully, but resolutely.

Clearly, the Apostle Paul had no problem with questioning authorities or appealing to the law in his defense, and I see no biblical reason why modern Christians are under obligation to act any differently. The Constitution is our supreme law, our supreme authority; we have every right to appeal to its provisions and to demand that those provisions be respected and not overthrown.

Conclusion

In summary, be aware of the fact that our government has already begun using religious propaganda to get its way, and that it fully intends to do so again. Beware those who would preach to you concerning how you should obey them as authorities over you, if they refuse to obey the authority over them. Beware those who talk about the law if they themselves are law-breakers. Beware those who would speak to you of “duty,” if they themselves have broken their oaths and violated the trusts of their offices. Contrary to the propaganda you’re likely to hear in the event of a martial law situation, neither Romans 13, nor any other passage of scripture, can be twisted to the effect of forcing Christians to buckle under to, participate in, or otherwise sanction, illegal actions or outright atrocities committed by the state.

You who are members of the clergy: could you go door-to-door telling people that God wants them to turn in their guns (or fuel, or food, or gold) and to leave themselves bereft and helpless because the state says so? You who are members of the military or law enforcement agencies: could you force yourselves on, or actually fire on, otherwise law-abiding American citizens who might only be trying to defend themselves, their property and their families against those who have decided to toss the law out like yesterday’s garbage? Could you justly take part in unjust actions? How many of history’s wars and other atrocities could have taken place had those ordered to carry them out simply said “No.”? Could Rome have enslaved and tortured millions of people without the consent of its soldiers? Could any of the tyrants of the past have plundered their citizens had they been forced to wield the sword by themselves? Could a single Southern farm have been burned had Northerners not consented to Lincoln’s rampage? Could Stalin or Mao have murdered tens of millions of their own countrymen without the assistance of their “Peoples’” armies? Make no mistake, if the United States government ever decides to oppress its own people, for whatever reason, it will not be the President or members of Congress, or the Joint Chiefs who go around intimidating people, kicking in doors, muzzling protest, dividing families, jailing and/or torturing dissenters or carrying off property. It will be you. They will expect you to do these things for them. The question is: can you live with it? And even more importantly: can you answer to God for it?

II Corinthians 5:10 – “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad.” (Note – I see no exceptions granted here for those “acting under orders”).

Finally, don’t wait for the crisis to come before you act. The day martial law is declared is not the time to begin doing something about it. That time is now, today, before it happens. Start by familiarizing yourself with passages of scripture such as those I’ve listed above; and always consider what the Bible says for itself, not how others would interpret it to their own advantage. Familiarize yourself with the Constitution, with relevant legislation and presidential executive orders, and with the history of martial law situations and military occupations both here in the U.S. and in other countries. Share what you learn with your friends and family. Consider joining up with groups like Ron Paul’s new Campaign for Liberty, where you can work for change alongside other concerned Americans. Never forget that an intimate knowledge of truth is the best defense against the lies, distortions and half-truths of the propagandists.

Robert Hawes is the author of One Nation, Indivisible? A Study of Secession and the Constitution. This article, along with his past writings, can be found on his blog. He lives in South Carolina with his family, and is available for hire as a freelance writer. All scripture references used in this article are from the New American Standard Bible®, Copyright © The Lockman Foundation 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995. All rights reserved. Used by permission.

Can Christians serve in the modern army?

The following is a great article by Pastor Chuck Baldwin, in which he addresses the question of whether Christians can serve in the modern American armed forces with a clear conscience:

***

Can Christians Serve In The New World Order Army?
by Chuck Baldwin
May 7, 2009


Many patriotic Americans, including many retired and former military personnel, are increasingly chagrined at the direction the U.S. armed forces are taking. For one thing, there were numerous instances in the Clinton and both Bush administrations when American GIs were required to serve under foreign or United Nations commanders. Does anyone remember the Michael New case? How can any American GI, who has taken an oath to the U.S. Constitution, willingly surrender himself to a foreign commander, flag, or uniform? That is a potential conflict that has caused many to question modern military service.

Another potential moral conflict in modern military service (at least for Christians) is the inter-sex training and quartering that is now required in every branch of military service (except the Marine Corps). To put healthy young adults of the opposite sex in such close and, many times, compromising environments is more than problematic for those wishing to stay morally pure. (Christian parents should know that many state colleges and universities now require students to live in coed dorms, including using coed bathrooms and showers.) Add to this President Barack Obama's determination to expunge the Department of Defense's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, thereby allowing open homosexuals to serve in the military. All of the above has many Christians questioning the wisdom of giving their sons and daughters to today's U.S. military.

Another disconcerting element of modern military service is the reality that today's American military is more and more being used as the tool of globalists to forge an international New World Order. For instance, both Republican and Democratic Presidential administrations will send U.S. military personnel (including the National Guard) to guard the borders of foreign countries, but never ask them to protect our own borders. Sending the National Guard overseas, especially, strains the principles of constitutional government. But maybe that explains why we have so many foreign troops on U.S. soil. After all, did President George W. Bush not ask foreign troops to monitor our borders and skies in the weeks and months following the attacks on 9/11?

Using U.S. troops as international "peacekeepers" only serves the interests of the international New World Order; it has nothing to do with protecting the lives and property of the American people. In fact, an argument could be made that every war the United States has fought since World War II has been unconstitutionally waged: for the purpose of fulfilling the globalistic aspirations of world leaders and not for the defense of the United States. Accordingly, many Christian parents are hesitant to give their children to modern military service.

If all of the above is not enough, we read this story from Reuters and One News Now: "The U.S. military is confirming that it has destroyed some Bibles belonging to an American soldier serving in Afghanistan.

"Reuters News says the Bibles were confiscated and destroyed after Qatar-based Al Jazeera television showed soldiers at a Bible class on a base with a stack of Bibles translated into the local Pashto and Dari languages. The U.S. military forbids its members on active duty--including those based in places like Afghanistan--from trying to convert people to another religion.

"Reuters quotes Maj. Jennifer Willis at the Bagram Air Base, north of Kabul, who said 'I can now confirm that the Bibles shown on Al Jazeera's clip were, in fact, collected by the chaplains and later destroyed. They were never distributed.'" (Source: OneNewsNow.com, 5/5/09)

For any Christian, this episode highlights a very serious conflict of duty. Any genuine Christian must take his Lord's command to "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature" very seriously. In fact, how can any Christian not witness to others--whoever they are--of Christ's redeeming grace? To refuse to do so amounts to willful rejection of Christ, in which case, it is doubtful that genuine salvation is even present.

Therefore, how can a Christian dutifully obey his Savior and Lord on the one hand, while, at the same time, obeying a military order forbidding him or her from "trying to convert people"? And how could any genuine Christian chaplain willingly confiscate and DESTROY God's Holy Word? I could be mistaken, but I don't believe even Adolf Hitler burned Bibles. He burned a lot of books, but I've never read that he burned God's Word.

Now, no one has more respect and admiration for military personnel than I do. My dad and his two brothers proudly served their country in World War II. One brother served in the U.S. Marines and was wounded in the Pacific. The other served in the Navy, and Dad was selected to work on the Atomic Bomb. I have a nephew who served in the Marines in Gulf War I, and some of my closest friends are former, retired, or active-duty military.

I feel the same way about law enforcement personnel. In my youth, law enforcement was my chosen career. Some of my dearest friends are either retired or active-duty law enforcement officers. It is a noble profession.

We have to be honest enough to admit, however, that both the U.S. military and many of our law enforcement agencies are being co-opted by a politically correct leadership that is in the process of changing the rules of conduct--not to mention the rules of engagement.

Our military personnel are more and more resembling international policemen, while our local and state peacekeepers resemble military forces. Neither bodes well for U.S. sovereignty and independence, or for liberty at home.

When we have federal police agents, with no justification or authority, brutally beating an innocent pastor; when FBI agents use the Patriot Act to seize an obviously innocent teen-age boy from his home, and then afford him no constitutional rights; when U.S. military personnel are required to wear U.N. blue and take orders from foreign commanders; when U.S. military personnel are used as international policemen; when military chaplains are ordered to not pray in Jesus' name and to confiscate and destroy Bibles; and when soldiers are commanded to not witness for Christ or share their faith; then it is apparent that the role of both the U.S. military and law enforcement are being dramatically altered--and not for the better.

It is for good reason that many Christians (and non-Christians, for that matter) are looking twice at modern military service. In fact, a retired high-ranking military officer (whose name I will not divulge) recently told me, "Chuck, there is no way I could recommend that anyone volunteer in the U.S. military today."

Obviously, we have a host of honorable men and women of sound character and conviction still serving in both the U.S. military and in various law enforcement agencies. Thank God!

It is also obvious, however, that the powers that be are quickly "remaking" (to use Barack Obama's word) our military and law enforcement agencies into an image never desired or designed by America's Founding Fathers. Thus, the conflict between good men and bad policies will only worsen. And many will continue to question the wisdom of giving their sons and daughters to modern military service.

On the other hand, an argument could be made that it is at such a time as this that good men are all the more needed in the U.S. military and in law enforcement. That is a very valid argument, by the way: as long as those good men realize what they will be required to risk when their superiors order them to surrender allegiance to the Constitution or to sacred principle. But then again, we are all required to share in that risk, are we not?

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php

© Chuck Baldwin

This column is archived as http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20090507.html

Christianity and War

The following is an excellent article by Laurence M. Vance entitled "Christianity and War." It offers a scathing, and I believe much needed, critique of Christian views concerning the state and warfare. Highly recommended!

Here's an excerpt:

We hear more from the pulpit today justifying military intervention in the Middle East than we do about the need for missionaries to go there. It is appalling that instead of the next military adventure of the U.S. government being denounced from every pulpit in the land, it will be preachers who can be counted on to defend it – and more so if it is another Republican war. To compound all of this, many of the church and denominational leaders who don’t follow the Republican Party line and don’t support the war in Iraq are strangely silent. Not a word about the immorality of the Iraq War. Not a word about U.S. imperialism. Not a word about the lies of the U.S. government. Not a word about the pseudo-Christianity of the president. Not a word about Christians naïvely supporting the latest U.S. government pronouncement. Not a word about the CIA and the military being no place for a Christian young person. Not even a mild word of warning about the evils of the U.S. government. I don’t buy the excuse that these leaders are merely preaching and teaching the Bible and choosing not to dabble in politics. They are not silent about the evils of rock music, trashy daytime television, abortion, and pornography, even though the Scripture doesn’t mention these things, yet they are silent about the evils of war. Perhaps their churches contain too many current and former members of the military and they don’t want to rock the boat. Perhaps they are veterans themselves and feel embarrassed to now criticize their former employer.

If there is any group within Christianity that should be the most consistent, the most vocal, the most persistent, and the most scriptural in its opposition to war and the warfare state, it is conservative Christians who look to the Bible as their sole authority. Yet, never at any time in history have so many of these Christians held such unholy opinions. The adoration they have toward President Bush is unholy. The association they have with the Republican Party is unholy. The admiration they have for the military is unholy. The thirst they have for war is unholy. The callous attitude they have toward killing foreigners is unholy. The idolatry they manifest toward the state is unholy.

For the full article, go here, and thanks to Laurence Vance for writing such a great piece.