PART TWELVE OF POST
WOULD JESUS BE WELCOME IN YOUR CHURCH TODAY --- PART TWELVE
I began this fifth and last point in part nine. I encourage you to begin reading that before reading this post.
July 24, 10:45 p.m.
I began with the idea of this message by trying to list a few things that many churches do today that is not in keeping with basic Bible teaching. I stated that there are many "sacred cows" which seem to be off-limits to criticism or second-guessing.
This point will be one of those where there is no Bible reason in the world to be a part of what has become a rotten institution; yet, many (otherwise sound) fundamental churches teach that Christian's are to maintain a presence within this group.
I challenge every pastor who teaches this to back your teaching up with Bible verses, in context. I submit to you that you can not do it! So, I humbly ask that if you are still going to continue teaching this same error... then please, at least have the common decency to quit pretending that you are a Bible believer.
Keep in mind that there are only three institutions in the entire world that God Himself ordained and started: marriage, human-government, and the church. Only those three are to always have a witness for God within them. Everything else... and I mean everything else which becomes corrupt... Christians are ordered to... "come out from among them."
Many years ago I flew to Dallas, Texas to meet doctor Donald Howard: founder of A.C.E. (Accelerated Christian Education). He made one statement that was worth the entire trip... if I learned nothing else. He said, "Most Christian's are humanists in their thinking." Then he proved his statement with the following illustration; He said, "Imagine that Moses had just led all of the children of Israel out of Egypt. And then he was given the Ten Commandments from the hand of God and all of the instructions on how to live and rear their own children. Dr. Howard then said... "How big of a fool would Moses have been to say the following: 'Okay everyone, each morning I want you to pack little Susie and Johnny's lunch in a brown paper bag and have them wait at the bus stop to be taken back into Egypt and to be taught in all of the Egyptian's ways'"
Moses would have been a fool indeed! Dr. Howard was right... that is exactly what most Christian's in America are doing. Having escaped the pollution of the world through Jesus the Christ, they are sending their children back into a Godless atmosphere to be taught in the ways of the heathen by mostly heathen teachers.
Are you aware that in the present day government-run school system that most of the ideas implemented by the godless NEA, which are then carried out in classrooms all across America, were the ideas of a child of the devil named John Dewey. Dewey was a signer of the Humanist Manifesto, an anti-God manifesto where man and not God is the center of the universe. Dewey lived his life and based his whole concept of living on Darwin's silly belief in macro-evolution. Dewey is considered and called by all (lost) modern educators as the "father of modern education." They are actually proud of this lost son of Belial.
There would be little point for me to take the time and begin to fully list how Godless the American government-run school system is today. It would be impossible for you to not already know that. From sex-education starting at third-grade level, to free condoms, to classes teaching alternative lifestyles (Bobby has two mom's), to death education, to God, by an act of Congress, being ordered out of the government-run school system, to taking under-age girls to have their un-birthed babies murdered, without permission or knowledge of the child's parents, etc. etc. etc., they are corrupt to the core. That I believe is a given.
And of course, those reasons along with another several dozen more are why no Christian should ever have any part whatsoever in that corrupt atmosphere. But, I also want to tell you another reason why they ought to be forsaken, they are terrible at what they are supposed to do... that is giving an education to children! They are abject failures in this matter.
If you doubt this let me give you just a few examples: Children who are trained in American schools, fall well below most every other country on Earth in basic education. Example, South Korea, China, Japan, are only three of a dozen countries which outrank us in almost every single category, and many of the other countries which educate their children better and are listed in published reports are what we in America would refer to as... "third-world countries." In addition... are you aware that as a professional group, it was reported with information from the U.S. census bureau that public school teachers in Wisconsin sent their own children to private schools for their education at a percentage rate of three times that of the average American citizen. 31.4 percent of the public school teachers surveyed stated that their own children were trained in private schools... not the government-run school they "taught" in.
Look it up online and you will find similar reports from California to New York to Washington D.C. In fact, this holds true throughout public education. It is because even the people who work at the schools know what academic failures they are.
I have had people say to me that if every person who named the name of Christ immediately pulled out of public education that it would fail... immediately. My answer is always the same: "So what... let it fail." Show me Scripture where Christian's are supposed to "prop up" or even support Godless institutions.
I say again... "Let it fail!"
I want to show you just one headline of a hundred I could show you which proves how deceitful and dishonest the NEA is in trying to get around the fact that children who are trained in the private sector will (across the board) score higher on standard tests which are given to measure academic progress. Every year when I taught in a Christian school we would administer the very same tests which were given to students on the same grade-level in the government-run school system. Our students, like almost all private school students, tested well above the national average: when compared to the public school student. The graduation-rate for students in the private sector for high school is nearly double that of the public schools. And there is no contest for the number of students who graduate from private school going on to college for more education... percentage wise, the public schools are fortunate to just get a kid to receive their (watered-down) high school diploma, let alone furthering their "education."
I am going to write verbatim a headline from a published paper I just read online: PUBLIC SCHOOLS HAVE EDGE IN MATH. This is the part where I want to show you how deceitful many public educators are and how low they will stoop in trying to appear as if they are better at educating children then the private sector.
Many of these people are hoping that you will only read the headline and not look deeply into the story. I knew the moment I saw it that it was a lie! All I had to do was read just a few paragraphs till I found how they skewed numbers in their favor.
The article began this way: "Though private school students long have scored higher on national assessment..." A more common name for this is the "nation's report card." It is a way to assess whether or not a child is actually learning.
So, I read the first part that private school students have always tested well above the private sector, I wanted to see what trickery they used to skew the numbers in their favor; it came within just a few paragraphs.
Please read the story for yourself online... otherwise you will believe I am making it up. Surely these people can not really be this ignorant... I thought. Then I figured that they might have been trained in a public school... now it made sense.
Here is how they arrived at their headline that "Public Schools Have Edge In Math." The article picked up with these words: "The new study used advanced statistical techniques to adjust for the effects of income, school, and home circumstances."
I had the best laugh I have had in weeks... nearly fell out of my chair. Here is exactly what they did! If you are an inner-city black... four extra points, if you are below the poverty level... three extra points, if you are in a one-parent home... six extra points, if you are in a troubled school... five extra points. In reality, the article doesn't state the actual point value they gave to each circumstance... but that is what they did. They arbitrarily assigned a point value to different circumstances and cheated their way to better numbers.
According to their own report, let me give you the "raw scores" which are the actual scores the students got from the tests which were administered. The private school students tested 14.3 points higher than the public school students! But, once they assigned values for being poor, one-parent households, etc. they gave the public school students a 3.4 percentage edge. WHAT AN ABSOLUTE JOKE!!!
So help me, if I were a black person I would be absolutely outraged that some white liberal Democrat believes that I am so ignorant that intellectually it would be impossible for me to compete on a level playing field with my white counterpart... so, because my skin is black I have to have points added to my test. Not that they were earned, but they were given to me by white men because God had me birthed to parents with dark skin. Does this make anyone else angry? I'm not black, yet I'm upset for you.
Today, in America, what I just wrote about assigned point values for black students is a common practice in public colleges throughout America to determine admission to their school. If you are black and reading this I have a question for you. Doesn't it make you angry that there are some black leaders... but mostly white Democrats that believe because you have black skin that you are naturally more ignorant than white people and you need a helping hand? Ridiculous, isn't it?
The other thing I have heard is that Christian's need to be involved as teachers in public schools so they can witness their faith. I only have one word for that... LIAR!
Oh, you might say that, but you don't do it. Try it and see how long you are employed. It is a heathen system and they do not tolerate teaching about God. Even if you are saved your hands are tied by the text-books which teach lies that damn the souls of its students. And you, who say you are Christian are espousing the teachings of the devil. If you say that isn't true I dare you to try this: Stand up in your class and tell the students that evolution is a fairy-tale and Christ alone saves. If you are born-again you believe that, don't you? Then try saying it.
You cannot justify being in a heathen environment by saying you are a witness for God... but you never actually witness.
How long would you support a foreign missionary if he taught the natives all about their pagan gods but never told them about Jesus? That's all you are as a public school teacher... a purveyor of lies taught and distributed by lost people.
I was invited to address a classroom of graduating students from a state college. These were young people who had earned degrees and were planning on going into teaching. But, I did it the right way. I began by asking how many in the room were Christian's? I then spent 40 minutes telling them to forsake any idea of teaching in a public school. And to those who did not raise their hand I witnessed to them. You see, I treated it as a heathen mission field and I unashamedly witnessed my faith. So, if you want to go to a public school and do that... have at it. But anything less, then you are a compromiser and are disobedient to the command to "come out from among them and be ye separate."
Was I invited back to that college? Absolutely not... that's why I let them have it the first time! I honestly believe the main reason that many who say they are saved send their children to a public school, and here it is... "the love of money..." Public schools might not cost you any out-of-pocket expenses... but it could well cost you something much more precious... the eternal soul of your child. I say to you with all sincerity... if you have to live in a cardboard box under a bridge in order to send your children to a Christian school you ought to do that rather than send them to be trained in the ways of the world by lost people.
I taught in Christian school... I know the pay is lower. But I used to say to people, "The pay might be low, but the benefits are out of this world!
When we were packing to move a few months ago I came across a video tape that I did not know existed. It is a message that I preached on television about 25 years ago. Keep in mind that at that time VHS recorders were not plentiful like they are now. Sandwiched between old tapes of the girls when they were little is a message I brought when the best president of the last century held office: Ronald Reagan.
I sat and watched it the other night when I was ready to type the last part of this message. And I thought that if a person were to view it today that not one single word would have to be changed from then to now. Except the schools are more corrupt and the drop-out rate is higher. Also of course, they weren't yet so wicked that kids were killing other kids, that would come soon enough though.
In conclusion let me restate: get out of the public schools. You are working from the devil's play-book and not God's whenever you stay within a corrupt and Godless environment. GET OUT NOW!!!
You can always email me at clarkmatthews1@aol.com
PART ELEVEN OF POST
WOULD JESUS BE WELCOME IN YOUR CHURCH TODAY--- PART ELEVEN
July 21, 9:33 a.m.
(For this point you will need to begin reading at part nine first.)
There is something I want to address before I pick up again on the last point in my five-part message. (I have no intention of doing this again.) I feel like the visiting preacher who was blasting cigarette smoking while preaching in Winston Salem, North Carolina. He said, "I know what some of you are thinking... we won't have you back again, I know (he shouted) that's why I am giving it to you now!"
So, if you never want to again read what I write, "fine," but try to show the courage of your professed convictions and read what I write this time only: then let's see if you still feel the same way about certain people you have supported in the past.
Many years ago my pastor would periodically ask me to bring messages on one (or more) of the many radio programs the church sponsored or the weekly television show we had. At that time we had several small-market radio stations and two 50,000 watt stations (north/south) which had the potential to reach one-half of the population in the United States. For me personally, I could always count on the most response (good or bad) from four topics: eternal security of the believer, government-run education, abortion, and the KJV.
I am certain the pastor had his own hot-button issues that garnered a lot of response, but I always got the most mail from those four issues. Arbitron, based on mail received, estimates the market-share of an audience at any given time. Since only a very small fraction of any audience ever takes the time to actually write and then mail a letter, the more mail received after a program meant there were more listeners.
They would also factor into their equation the subject matter being discussed; naturally the more controversial the material the more angry some would become and the more letters would be mailed: because of that they also have a factor they use to make an adjustment so that the audience numbers are not unfairly skewed.
(Bear with me and I will explain why I am telling you this.)
If I have a total of a little more than 2,300 "hits" to my blog (page views, etc.) and I get three negative emails over things recently said about Obama, then either the numbers are skewed... because that would mean in such a small "market," (only 2,300 readers) many times that number would like to write. But, they either do not want to waste their time, or haven't the courage, etc.
Or, there's another reason! And I believe it is this one... guilt. (I'll explain that in a little while.)
When I decided to try and write again (on my blog) on a somewhat regular basis I determined that I would not use it as a bully-pulpit. In any debate it seems that the person who "speaks" last wins. Regardless how well-reasoned the opponents argument might have been. Since it doesn't cost me anything to sit here and type, it seems unfair to rail on an individual letter writer, or three... as the case might be. So, please understand, I am not trying to do that. What I am going to do, rather than just say that Obama, and Clinton, and others like them are evil men... I am going to show you evidence of their evil ways and let you form, perhaps, a more educated opinion of them.
Tom Lamb, who at the time was president of Rexair, came to the office that my brother and I had on Preston Highway in Louisville. He was there because a major magazine had written an article tearing down a product we sold.
The article was unfair and untrue: not because I sold the product do I say this. The testers had used a substance that we, in writing, had previously stated would not work in our system. They tested using it anyway and of course it failed. In other words, they already had a bias and the test was specifically set up to make the product fail.
I did some research on the comapny and found much product bias and many inaccuracies in past reporting.
I was prepared and I detailed to Tom what ought to be said in major newspapers that he, as president of the company, could purchase space in. He listened and then he said that as he traveled around the country he would like to, "Carry me in his pocket and bring me out anytime someone argued against our product." Then, he said something astute: "You don't pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel."
He knew, and I knew that with what I had we could win the argument in an open and public debate. But, they would always get the last word... they owned a magazine!
I told you that story because in this forum I can always get the last word... it costs me nothing to sit here and type my thoughts. And that I realize might be patently unfair to you, that is if you are silly and disagree with me. (Honestly, I am only joking with that last sentiment.) Let's begin.
Aesop had his fables and many times they told truth through a fabricated story. I am going to also make up a short story, but mine will be loosely based on Matthew 7:15-20.
I have an errand to run, I will be back in a few minutes.
11:25 a.m.
My fable will be about a talking tree: this talking tree of mine represents Bill, and Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama, and all other deceivers.
I went to the nursery and purchased a pear tree. I knew it was a pear tree because it said that it was. I even said, "You don't look like any pear tree I have ever seen."
But it said to me that I "...should not judge by what I see, judge by what I say, and I say to you that I am a pear tree." So, I purchased the tree and took it home and planted it in my garden. I waited patiently for its fruit as I love the fruit of pear trees.
Much to my chagrin and surprise, when the fruit fell to the ground it was not a pear, rather it was an avocado fruit which lay on the ground. I chided the tree and called it a liar and a deceiver and I threatened to cut it down... why cumbereth it the ground?
But, it pleaded and with gentle words it said that it was in fact a pear tree and this bad fruit which came from it was an aberration... and would I please give it another chance to bear pleasing fruit?
I waited patiently and again the fruit which continued to fall from this tree was always an avocado, pits and all. The tree was a liar and a deceiver... I was right in the beginning, it was never a pear tree, it only pretended to be something it was not so that I would take it home with me. (The End)
(For reasons of my own I picked an avocado to represent Bill, it might only be funny to me.)
Matthew 7:15-20 "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit: but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."
Notice that Jesus does not say by their words ye shall know them. It is always by their fruit (deeds) ye shall know them. Clinton, Obama, and their ilk can say till the cows-come-home that they are "Christian," but if their fruit, which is their actions are evil continually, then they are corrupt and still children of the devil.
Let me give you a few facts about these men and why I say they are evil to their core. First though, do you understand what partial-birth abortion is? The doctor takes a child in the process of being birthed (head-first) and he forcibly turns the child into a breech-position which is feet first.
He then delivers this live baby, exposing the complete body but he is careful to leave the head still in the womb. Now he takes a long, sharp, hollow tube and he forces it into the back of the head of the baby. Now he hooks this hollow tube to a powerful vaccum and he suctions the brains from the dying infant.
During Clinton's tenure, and on two separate ocassions Clinton overturned Congress in stopping this barbaric procedure. House bill H.R. 1833 banned doctors from killing children by this horrific method. Clinton, a son of the devil vetoed this bill: not once, but twice! Forty-six Republicans and twelve Democrats wanted this stopped. The heathen Clinton, wanted it to go on.
Obama, as a junior senator from Illinois voted against the "Induced Infant Liability Act." In essence the bill would have given life to any child who survived the evil intent of the abortionist. Obama voted against it. If a child survives an abortion procedure and is "fully birthed," Obama believes the baby should still be killed. He is a monster!
Before Obama, the Democrats who ran for president had as their party platform on abortion the words, "safe, legal, rare." When Obama was selected to represent the Democrat party, one of those three words were removed: care to guess which one? The word rare was removed. Obama is a monster!
March 9th, 2009 with the words, "All right, there we go," he reversed George Bush's ban on stem-cell research. Now Obama, and the godless Nazi's of WWII have something else in common, besides there final residence in Hell: experimentation on embryos. Obama is a monster!
Immediately after the thirty-sixth anniversary of Roe v Wade, Obama had 50 million dollars sent overseas to support countries that force pregnant girls to murder their children. Obama is a monster!
In 2001 under President Bush, he cut off all funding to UNFPA because of many documented cases of girls being forced to kill their children. Under Obama that has been repealed and in addition he also had overturned a rule that has been in effect since Ronald Reagan was president. It was called Kemp-Kasten and no money was given to any country that forced girls to kill their offspring. Under Obama that has been reversed. Obama is a monster!
Douglas Johnson said, "One effect of Obama's order will be to divert many millions of dollars away from groups that do not promote aborting, and into the hands of those organizations that are the most aggressive in promotiong abortion in developing countries." Obama is a monster!
You remember when I wrote that sometimes people respond because of guilt. I think it is because it is impossible to separate your involvement in the horrible deaths of these children if your vote helped to put such people into office.
I have had people say that because Clinton, Obama, voters, etc. did not actually kill the un-birthed children, then they are not culpable. If that is true, and by the same reasoning, Adolph Hitler killed no Jews! I have searched, and I can find no evidence that Hitler, with his own hands physically killed a single Jew.
Yet, I, and most people who are not clinically insane say that he was a barbaric murderer: why? It is because he set in motion the mechanism and had a desire to see Jews slaughtered. The same way I say that Clinton, Obama, and all who holds to their animalistic views have a hand on ever scalpel that penetrates the soft flesh of all un-birthed children.
If you don't want to read me again... great! But, if you read all of this then you at least know something more than you knew before about certain evil presidents.
Hopefully, the next time I write I will pick up again on my fifth point.
You can always email me at clarkmatthews1@aol.com
PART TEN OF POST
WOULD JESUS BE WELCOME IN YOUR CHURCH TODAY--- PART TEN
I am on my fifth and last point of this message. I began this point though in part nine... I encourage you to read that before beginning on this section. You can always email me at clarkmatthews1@aol.com
July 20, 12:45 p.m.
In Genesis chapter nine God sets up human government. There are many people in our present churches that are greatly misinformed on one aspect of the government God set up. They erroneously believe that all people who are elected to office are there because it is the person God wanted for that office: wrong!
I admit that everyone who holds office in government are at least there because of the permissive will of God, but not necessarily there because of His divine will. Many times it is just a rebellious people who are rejecting clear Bible teaching and want a leader who does not reflect God or His teachings; such is obviously the case with Obama. In I Samuel chapter eight you have an extremely rebellious nation, (Israel) much like America today. They were then and we are today, engaged in every type of sin imaginable.
The people wanted Saul, a man who was pleasant to look at: I Samuel 9:2 "And he had a son, whose name was Saul, a choice young man, and a goodly: and there was not among the children of Israel a goodlier person than he: from his shoulders and upward he was higher than any of the people." Keep in mind that what is being described here is Saul's outward appearance. Inwardly, Saul was an evil man and this was brought forth during his entire reign as king.
Remember: God looks at the heart when He judges a man, it is man who looks on the outward appearance and we have a tendency to judge people as either good or bad by what we see. If that were not true, you would not have all of the whorish men and women in Hollywood being made into "idols" only because genetically they have a nice physical appearance.
The very same thing happened in this election that happened when Kennedy was elected in 1960. Read any history ever written about the first debate, either from liberal or conservative, it is the exact same story. By a large margin, those people who only heard the debate on radio gave Nixon a win in the debate. However, those who saw the two men on television, by a wide margin gave Kennedy the win in the debate.
You see, it didn't matter if VP Nixon was better prepared, more qualified to lead or not: physically, he didn't look as good! I would have hoped that the illogical and nonsensical voters who vote because of appearance, instead of character and content, would have long sense passed from the scene: albeit, I was hoping for too much. History repeated itself again with Obama and McCain.
You have one man (Obama) who was nothing more than a community organizer, on the same level of Christopher 2X of Louisville. In fact, just a short time before... Obama was so unknown that he marched in a local parade while carrying a toilet-plunger: now that was a job he was at least qualified for. But, Obama was elected by the children of the people who voted Kennedy into office because he, as the evil Saul before him... looked good.
God tells His prophet not to be dismayed by their evil choice of Saul, because God knew it wasn't a man they were rejecting, the people of Israel then, and many in America today, by voting for Obama, are rejecting God... and His principles!
I Samuel 8:7 "And the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them."
It is clear that Saul was not God's divine choice, but because of the hardness of the people's heart in Israel, God permitted Saul as His permissive choice. Read the history of the kings in the Bible and you will see that played out again and again. As the nation's heart is far from God, they get evil leaders like the husband and wife team of Ahab and Jezebel. (I know exactly what you are thinking... sounds just like Bill and Hillary doesn't it? Well, at least that is who I think of whenever I read of Ahab and Jezebel.) However, when God's people start trying to do right before God, they get wonderful and spiritual leaders like Hezekiah.
So, always remember that God ordained the institution of human government, and not the individuals who hold office. A baby-killing son of the devil would not be a divine choice of God's to lead this, or any other nation.
My point is that regardless how evil or far from God our present president is, we, as believers, must never entirely abandon human government: again it is because God set forth that institution and the wheat and the tares will mix until the end-time.
The last (in order) institution God set forth is the church. Again, this is a place where the wheat and the tares will grow together until harvest time. Then God will gather His wheat into barns (Heaven) and the tares he will tie together for the burning. (Hell) To see that teaching as I just wrote it out... read Matthew 13:24-43.
I hope those who are reading this attend a great "church." That is one that preaches the Gospel, regularly wins souls to the kingdom, helps the poor, supports missionaories, etc. etc. etc. And what is written above is only a few things any sound church must be doing. Let us say that your local body of believers are doing this and much more... are you aware though that if the Lord doesn't return soon that your wonderful "church" will one day be so liberal that true Bible believers will not attend?
If you doubt that, name me some second and third generation churches that are sound in their teachings today? Now I am not talking about churches that began with unsound doctrine. I am talking about churches and Bible colleges which began on-fire for God and today are only places where "the heathen meet." For any one you can name to me that is still sound... I will give you four that is not. The reason is simple... "certain men crept in unawares." It takes the devil a little time, but he does get his people (tares) into the church.
The good news is that when it happens to the point that the tares are growing faster than the wheat: God's people simply do what they have been commanded to do... they leave! That is why you see people leaving what was once strong works for God and they either start or join with another fundamental work elsewhere.
At this point I am not naming names. I am not trying to pick a fight with God's people, just the devil's people. But, I know a great church in the area that has already started its downward spiral: I saw evidence of it about fifteen years ago. It came with an announcement of just one man resigning. I turned to my wife and said that "they need to be very careful with their selection of his replacement." Because this man who was leaving was a straight-arrow and a bulldog in the Lord's work.
A couple of weeks later his replacement was named: I shook my head, turned to my wife and said... "It's over." I knew the school this new man was trained at... very liberal! I also had met the man and gotten to know him... extremely likeable, but no real backbone, wishy-washy, touchy-feely, he was the antithesis of John the Baptist.
If you ever want to observe a church's spiritual decline you will usually see it happening in the music department first. Music will start being introduced that is more pleasing to the flesh than the spirit... it will start to have a beat and it will always be sensual. After awhile, the only way you would know that what you are hearing is supposed to be "Christian music" is you will have to listen closely to the words... every once in a while you might hear the word, "Jesus" being thrown in. Were it not for that you might as well be at a "Kiss" concert.
By the time this happens the church would have all new hymnals in the pews. All songs about Christian "soldiers" have been removed. After all, "Aren't we all supposed to be about love... and not fighting." Every song that has any reference to blood will be gone. I mean, Who wants that "bloody" religion anyway?"
By the time this happens the tares rule in the church and you might have a few wheat left which have a perpetual dazed look in their eyes wondering how it all happened so quickly. They still remember when their church played good music and had sound preaching, but not anymore.
Even in good sound churches it is probably a 90/10 mix between the saved and the lost. However, in churches that are going well south (literally) the mix is most probably still a 90/10, but this time it is in favor of the tares.
Many years ago I drove to some places that not long ago were places where tens of thousands were saved and taught to serve God: today they are full of liberals and liberal teachings. A prime example is where Moody preached in Chicago. At the time I visited, of the measley 100 or so who showed up in that huge auditorium, not one soul in attendance knew the way of salvation! Terribly sad. Yet, it just proves that as the devil's people show up, God's people are commanded to separate.
Please remember that you are following your father's playbook in whatever you do. If you are lost your father is still the devil and you are following his direction to creep into the work of God. If God is your Father, then you are to follow His plan and that is to separate from unbelievers, except in the only three institutions He began. In those, there is always to be a witness.
I will soon begin talking about the last point in this message... but it was imperitive to explain the difference between the plan of God and the plan of the devil. Right now though, I have some errands to attend.
PART NINE OF POST
WOULD JESUS BE WELCOME IN YOUR CHURCH TODAY--- PART NINE
(At 8:40 p.m. I added more to the bottom of this post.)
This will be the beginning of my fifth (and last) point in this message. If you are new to reading my blog I encourage you to go back to previous posts and begin with point number one.
As far as helping yourself in your personal walk with God, I believe my fourth point was the most important point in my message. And, as far as the idea to "train up a child in the way he should go..." (Proverbs 22:6) this last point will be the most important one.
I am also keenly aware that this point will cause the most anger among some who read it. Though, to be fair, that thought doesn't bother me: howbeit, getting someone angry is not the intention of this message. (Sometimes making people mad might be the reason behind a message, but it is not this one.) It is because anger is a motivating emotion which sometimes can be used to spur people toward salvation, or sometimes into better service toward God.
Whether any reader cares to believe it or not, I only have one reason to write what I do, and that is to hopefully be of a help to someone and to get all believers to actually practice what they purport to believe. That is if you say that you are a Bible believer, then prove it by actually following what the Bible states.
If you had the misfortune of sitting under bad preaching, teaching, parenting, etc. that will not be an acceptable excuse to God for what you practiced in this life.
The rich man in Hell pleaded for Abraham to send a sign to his brethren that they would not follow him to Hell. In this case he asked for Lazarus to be raised from the dead and to send him to them. Listen to Abraham's refusal as told by Jesus: "Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them." (Luke 16:29) Now, where do you suppose they were to hear what Moses and the prophets had to say? That's right... (the) B-I-B-L-E!!! REGARDLESS what anyone else teaches, in the end, you and I will be judged on the content of the written record God left for man, i. e., the Bible. I hope you understand that is what is meant in Revelation 20:12: "And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works."
I am fully aware that this particular passage of Scripture is speaking to lost mankind, and not to the redeemed. My point is that the "books" which are opened in Heaven will be (at least) the "book" where God records physical birth, the "Lamb's book of Life," and both Testaments, the Old and the New Testament.
Though there are people who would want to dispute with me for making a distinction between the first two books I mentioned, it doesn't matter... because they are two very different books! Read Psalm 139:16 and you will see that God records in His "book" every human birth. Then, when the new-birth takes place that name is also recorded in the "Lamb's book of life." Only those people whose names are written in that book enters Heaven. (Revelation 21:27) If you do not accept that truth: of the two books being different, then you are a Calvinist and I can't help you very much anyway.
The main reason I brought that out is to show you the importance God puts on His written record. Jesus said that seeing someone raised from the dead, which is a notable miracle should not cause a doubter to believe any quicker than by simply reading His word, (the Bible) and accepting what is written. (Luke 16:29) And, God will judge all mankind based on His written record, again the Bible. (Revelation 21 and 22)
Have you ever tried taking candy from a baby... literally? What happened? The very same crying heard when that happens is what I expect from this point I am making. This point is a scared cow teaching that large percentages of every congregation in every fundamental church holds to in today's society. I will prove with Scripture they are wrong to do it, but to many people it will not matter.
I would first like to say that I make no pretense about being a "good Christian;" would to God it were otherwise. In truth I would like to do better for God in everything that I do. However, there is at least one thing I do that I believe I actually do better than most believers. Sadly, it might be the only thing I do better, but here it is. In a heartbeat, every single time... and instantly I am willing to change any belief I have to line up with clear Bible teaching, as Bible truth is revealed. I don't even have to understand the "why" behind God stating it, I simply accept it because it is recorded.
I have no pride that makes me feel bad, if in fact I have believed falsely: I simply change my belief to line up with God's teaching. I also accept no man's person in place of what the Bible says. (That last point has actually severed good friendships with other believers who decided to do it their way, or their church's way, because, after all, "That's how they have always done it.") I have even tried to shame such people. "Are you serving a deacon board or God?" "Who are we to follow, the Word of God or the dogma of man?"
Before I begin I would like to encourage every believer to try something. When you hear or read something that is different than what you have heard or practiced in the past, search the Scriptures and see if you have been in error. Then, by the grace of God... change!!! Why would any person want to continue in error if the Bible shows that they are in error? I can only think of two reasons, and one is pride.
A very famous, and in my opinion a wonderful evangelist, wrote to me and said that I was right... in fact the Bible did hold up my position of what we were discussing. Yet... he ended by saying that he was still going to preach and teach what he always had on the subject. His human mind rationalized his decision to teach other than what the Bible taught, and in fact he was only trying to "help people." In essence he felt that if the true teaching on this subject was brought forward that it might cause many to fall into sin.
(His reasoning reminded me of the history I read of a few of the men who translated the KJV from Greek manuscript. There were some who sat on the board and they did not want to fully translate what transpired between Christ and the woman caught in the act of adultery. (John chapter eight)
With their human reasoning they thought the woman got off too easily and the quick act of forgiveness would cause others to follow her into sinful acts. Thankfully, the demagogues in the group were outnumbered by the Bible believers and the passage was faithfully translated.)
I kept the evangelist's letter: not for the purpose of ever showing it to anyone. In fact, I have had it, along with other letters I think of as important, for at least 20 years and no one besides myself have ever read it. I only keep it to remind myself that there are only two reasons known to myself why people accept supposed "truth" over what the Bible teaches. One is pride and the other is unsound reasoning. With the finite mind of man they are trying to out-think the infinite mind of God... it can't be done!
Later in this message I will tell you who I got this next quote from, and he was right then and sadly it is still true 20 years later. "Most Christian's are humanists in their thinking." It is off of that quote that I will later introduce the main point that I am writing about.
(I will add more to this later but my dogs need to be walked just now.)
8:40 p.m.
I want to explain the main difference between the plan of God for His children, and the plan that the devil has for his children. From the time God called Abraham into a far country to Moses being told to lead God's children out of Egypt, and keep in mind that Egypt always represents worldliness in Scripture: God's plan has always been to have a separate and separated people.
However, the devil's plan is the polar-opposite of the Lord's plan. Satan tries to infiltrate his children (tares) with God's children which are the wheat. All throughout Scripture we see the symbols that God used to remind His people that they were to remain separate from the unsaved. Example: two different types of animals could not be yoked (harnessed) together when they were pulling a cart or used to plow in the field. A person was not permitted to wear a garment with two different types of material in it. God was constantly re-enforcing this idea of complete separation between His people and the children of the devil.
The devil though, has a totally different idea: he wants his followers to be closely associated with God's children. Read carefully Jude and verse 4a "For there are certain men crept in unawares..." Keep that thought in mind and read Matthew 13: 24-30 as Jesus is teaching about the kingdom of Heaven. Notice that when the "good seed" was sown that the "enemy" came in the night and sowed "tares" among the good seed. Again, the devil delights in the fact that his children and God's children are yoked together in any way at all.
God's command is always the same and crystal clear: "Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, and will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty." (II Corinthians 6:17-18) Notice the words... "Wherefore come out from among them..." Who do you think God is speaking about in these verses? The... "them" ... is the lost that God wants His people to remain separate from.
Even the word, "ekklesia" (church) means "... called out of ..." Ekklesia is used 115 times in the Greek New Testament and never once does it mean a building. It is always a "called out and separated" body of believers.
I am explaining all of this for a very important teaching. Christians are always to leave and separate from unbelievers in every area and walk of life: except for the three institutions that God ordained. Except for these three, believers and unbelievers are not supposed to be in any type of "yoke." Remember though, that is God's plan. The devil loves that type of unequal "yoke."
The only three institutions where God does not want His children to totally separate from unbelievers are: (in the order He set them up) marriage... human government... and the church. I will speak about them in the same order He gave them.
Never, under any circumstances are a saved and an unsaved person supposed to marry. However, if two lost people get married and during the course of the marriage one partner gets saved, they are commanded to remain in that unequal yoke. It is because God was the One who ordained marriage and He wants the presence of His children in that institution. Read II Corinthians 7:12-16. Verse 12b ..."If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away." Read those several verses (12-16) and you will see that it is spelled out for both the man and the woman. It is the first of three, and only three institutions that believers and unbelievers are to "grow together" in an unequal yoke. Again though it is because there are only three God ordained institutions given in the entire Bible. And God will never be without a witness in those institutions.
(My wife is calling me for a "Honey do" list and I am going to call it quits for the night. I will try and type more: perhaps tomorrow.)
PART EIGHT OF POST
WOULD JESUS BE WELCOME IN YOUR CHURCH TODAY--- PART EIGHT
July 10, 10:45 a.m.
This will be my fourth point in my five point message. To read all of them please go to the first point in "previous posts." As before, I am trying to write about some things that in many churches today are either not talked about... sacred cows... or they are treated rather lightly. Today's topic will be the latter of the two.
I ended my last post on my third point with a teaser about this topic and I stated that because this particular practice is not being promoted in very many churches today that a lot of prayer goes unanswered... and I firmly believe the lack of this practice is the reason why.
This subject matter is one of a handful of topics, that, at least for me, is sort of a head-scratcher. By that I mean that I do not fully understand "why" we are supposed to do it: however, my lack of understanding the "why" behind it is not a good enough reason not to do it.
Example: I don't really understand the Holy Trinity... though I believe it; and I know allegory and I can recite every example in nature that re-enforces the idea: apple, egg, etc. (Talk to me sometime and we will see how many of them we can recite together.) In its plural form I know what "breshit bara elohim" means, and I see the relationship to the three parts of man having been made, ... "after our likeness." (Genesis 1:26) So, I accept the Trinity of God without being able to fully comprehend it. I tell you that so that you might understand that even if you can't explain why we are supposed to practice what I write about today... we are still supposed to do it simply because the Bible says so!
I visited a church once in Altoona, Pennsylvania that had the best worship service of any church I have ever been in. To be fair though I was traveling and it was a one- time visit, so I could not say with 100% assurance that every service was like that one: but I suspect it was.
If you are wondering what kind of service it was... in reality it was little different than any of a couple of thousand other services I have been in over the last 20 years. The attitude of the people is what was so very different. This was an independent, fundamental, Baptist church with traditional Baptist (Bible) preaching. Yet, there was an excitement within the group that I can only describe as "expectant."
Later, because he was asked about it, the pastor of the church said that they started to grow as a church and the excitement level of the people grew from the first day their "church" (collectively) began a weekly day of fast. He said that Tuesday was their "fast" day. Now, as a person not doing this it was easy to joke and say, "I didn't know that Tuesday was any "faster" than Monday."
Now, don't get the wrong idea. I think their should be order in a church service... standing up and running around only calls attention to yourself and it takes from the importance of what is being preached. In this service not a single person got to their feet during the message, or ran around: in fact, not even a single handkercheif was waved in the air. But, when it was time to sing... everyone sang out! There were a lot of shouted "amens" during preaching, yet still respectful and in order. That is what I meant by in one sense it was little different than thousands of other services: yet, it was obvious there was still a difference.
The preacher said that, giving, attendance, visitation, and every other program their church had was better since they began their one day each week of fasting. I believe there is a reason for that, it is called... obeying God.
Now keep in mind that I am not even sure the reason behind why we are told to fast, but I do know that we are told to... and that should be enough. We are not even told how often we are supposed to do it, but just that we are supposed to be doing this.
There are many examples in the Bible of men doing this and even sometimes why they are fasting. Moses fasted for 40 days as he was being given the Tables of Stone from God. Then, after coming down from the mountain and seeing the people sinning before God, he brake the stones and went back to the mountaintop for another forty days of fasting... 80 days! (You will need to read Exodus chapters 19 through chapter 35 to see all of this.)
David, upon learning that his child was dying fasted and prayed to God for a seven day period. Upon learning that his child had died, he broke his fast... the need was no longer there: II Samuel 12:14-23.
Personally I try to sometimes fast only because I know it is right to do it... I also try not to break my fast, other than for the above reason... the need is no longer there. Example: June 14, 1986, on a Saturday I was praying and fasting that God would heal and raise up my mom: upon learning that she had died, I broke my fast... the reason for it was no longer there.
There are many examples in both Testaments that men (and women) are to fast. Even the Lord Jesus, before He began His public ministry fasted for a 40 day period. And all of the holy men of the day practiced seasons of fasting. Matthew 9:14-15 "Then came to him the disciples of John, saying, Why do we and the Pharisees fast oft, but thy disciples fast not? And Jesus said unto them, Can the children of the bridechamber mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? but the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken from them, and then shall they fast."
I submit to you that we, those of us who are alive today, are in that time period when we are supposed to fast: "...then shall they fast."
Have you ever sincerely prayed for something or someone: fervently, ardently, with importunity, asking, seeking, pleading, etc. and to no avail? Have you ever done all of the above and coupled that with "fasting?"
You see, I can show you with Holy Scripture that certain prayers will not be answered by God, even if it is within His will to do so, unless fervent prayer is coupled with fasting!
Jesus had already given power to His disciples to cast out unclean spirits, heal the sick, etc. Yet, read carefully Matthew 17:14-21. Because I am not inclined to type that many verses, open your Bibles and read it for yourself! The story is that a man had brought his sick son to the disciples of Christ (who already had been given power to heal) and they could not heal the child. Of course, the Lord healed the child. Later, some of His disciples came to Christ and wanted to know why they were powerless with this particular child and (or) sickness? At first the Lord Jesus upbraids them for their lack of faith, but He also notes that there are special cases... the really hard ones that need something more. Matthew 17:21 "Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting." ....... but by prayer and fasting."
Keep in mind what Jesus had just done. In verse 18 the Lord rebuked the devil and the unclean spirit came out of the child. That is what He meant by "this kind goeth not out..."
Think about this: what "kind" do you think He was talking about? Of course it is the hard ones, maybe the seemingly impossible ones that are the "this kinds" of prayers which are needing to be answered. Do you have a loved one the devil has ensnared, who is lost, and in love with this world and sin... maybe they are a this kind? If they are worth praying for, are they not worth fasting for?
Again, I am not saying I understand why we are told to fast, only that we are. I have some ideas though. Maybe it is nothing more than Matthew 4:4a "... Man shall not live by bread alone..." Perhaps it is showing the heart of Job. Job 23:12b "I have esteemed the words of his mouth more than my necessary food." Whatever the true reason for fasting: in this life I might never know, but that in no way absolves me from doing it.
Think about this: you could possibly go your entire life with a heartfelt prayer often lifted up to God going unanswered because you won't give up a cheeseburger every once in a while. Remember: there are the "this kinds" of the world that need more than a hurried prayer offered to God.
I would not even begin to tell you how to start fasting if you don't already practice it. I will tell you though that the Good Lord tells you in detail how not to fast, that is to only be seen of men. I believe the best individual fasts you will ever do will be like the best prayers you will ever offer: both are done in secret.
I can tell you with some assurance (if you are new to this practice) how not to begin! If you decide to start with a 40 day fast, my best guess is somewhere about the ninth day (after starting) those closest to you will be crying as they are laying you to rest in some cemetery. I do believe though that it would be easy for you to start with a meal, then two: then a day, then two: etc. Since there is not any specific time-periods given, it would be folly for me to try to establish any. So, I just say that the next time you are up against a "this kind" of prayer that needs to be answered: try coupling the request with fasting!
I also believe that if corporately, the church (which is a local body of New Testament believers gathered in a single location) would covenant together for a day each week, or if that seems too much for some, a period of eight hours in that day, etc. to pray and fast together that some good things would happen.
And let us take the other position for just a moment, since there are always naysayers who want to take the opposite position. Let us say that if after seasons of fasting, you did not see a difference: no more answered prayers than normal... no more souls saved than usual... the baptismal waters not stirred any more often than in the past... would that still be a reason not to practice what we are told in Scripture to practice? Fast and pray if for no other reason than we are told to. You can always email me at clarkmatthews1@aol.com.
PART SEVEN OF POST
WOULD JESUS BE WELCOME IN YOUR CHURCH TODAY--- PART SEVEN
(IT IS NOW 8:45 P.M. AND I HAVE TALKED TO VIRGIL FOR AWHILE AND I HAVE BEGUN MY THIRD POINT SEVERAL PARAGRAPHS DOWN)
July 6, 7:33 p.m. This will be the beginning of the third point in my planned five point message. Before I begin I just want to make sure that everyone knows my email address as well: clarkmatthews1@aol.com. If you are new to this blog and you want to read the points I have thus far made: please go to previous posts and begin with the first one.
As I get ready to type on this point I would like to make sure that everyone honestly understands how God expects us to understand Scripture. Naturally, I am only writing to those who are converted (born-again) and I trust every person reading this has already settled that matter with Jesus the Christ. For we know that the natural man (lost) can never understand Scripture. (I Corinthians 2:14) Now, for the saved believer please read Isaiah 28:10. NOW, PLEASE DO EXACTLY THAT!
To rightly divide the Word of Truth takes verse-by-verse comparisons. It is okay to take single verses and even a part of a verse and teach doctrine... as long as that verse or part thereof does not contradict other verses or clear Bible teaching.
Let me give you an easy to understand example of what I am writing. Two different people from two different states sent an email to me about my comments against our present president, Obama. Both comments were similar. As Christians we are not to judge. Now let me ask you some questions. How many of you voted in the last presidential election? How many voted for Obama? How many of you voted for McCain? Did you draw straws to see who to pull the lever for? Or, did you as all reasonable people do... did you "judge" between the two men? If you are honest then of course you made a judgement on both of these men: one you counted as worthy, and the other you counted as "dung"... as I did Obama. I'm just kidding... maybe. Anyway, my point is that we have to judge and Christ did not condemn that, as I'm going to show you from the Bible, it is just that He wants us to "judge fairly."
Matthew 7:1 "Judge not, that ye be not judged." Now that seems pretty cut-and-dried doesn't it? It seems that we are not to judge! However, if you stop reading at that point and you are not following Isaiah 28:10, then you are either understanding and (or) espousing false teaching: for the Bible also states; I Corinthians 2:14-15 "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. (Now, pay very close attention to the first eight words of verse 15.) "But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man." Which is it... Judge nothing... or judge all things? Of course it is always and forever-more that we are to judge all things!!! Now, let's do what Isaiah 28:10 teaches and read the following verse in Matthew 7:1 and read verse two... that's fair, isn't it?
Matthew 7:2 "For with what judgment ye judge, (Wait a minute... I thought He just said not to judge, why then are we being told, "For with what judgment ye judge:" Do you see what I mean by making sure you read all verses that go with a teaching and not a "sound bite" only. now let's look at the complete verse. Matthew 7:2 "For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." Continue to read the rest of that particular teaching through to verse five and you will see that we are to always judge... but make fair judgements!
Look, whenever I say a man like Clinton, or Obama are evil men because they wantonly, actively, and vigorously pursue the deaths of millions of un-birthed babies through legislation, where is that wrong "judgement" on my part? Isn't it true that they did and do this? The last book I had published is 546 pages and much of it exposes evil men like these, and I won't rehash that in a few thousand word blog, you can buy it and read, or download it for free.
Though I have in my lifetime done much wrong that I will kneel before Christ and give account for: I tell you beforehand that I will happily stand before God and acknowledge my part in judging and exposing the actions of evil men like our present president.
(My dogs need some attention: I will publish this part and in a little while I will be back to begin work on my third point.)
If I began tonight by saying that no one should drink alcohol until they become drunken. A person who drinks alcohol could rightly say, "That's easy for you to say, because you don't drink alcohol, therefore you couldn't possibly get drunk." And they would be right.
Or, if I said no one should use tobacco in any form. Again, a person who uses tobacco could rightly say, "That's easy for you to say, because you don't use tobacco." Again, they would be right. And that type of reasoning actually makes such messages a little harder: because it is difficult for me to understand how such things could exercise control over someone since they do not interest me. However, tonight's point is different, for I am right in the middle of it.
So, you would think this point would be my easiest so far. I mean it is somewhat easier to teach people a truth about some need for improvement in their lives, when you also need the very same type of improvement. However, you also run the risk of being labeled a hypocrite for not "practicing what you preach." So, I take that risk in the hope that what I say might be of benefit to another.
I am keenly aware that tonight, as I am figuratively pointing my finger at you, there are three fingers pointing back at me. This sin I am speaking about this evening is "ever before me" and it is not a secret sin. It is open for the world to see. In fact, unless you are literally blind, it is quite obvious. I was thinking today that even a blind person might under the correct circumstance also easily figure it out. Perhaps, they might want to give me a hug... then they would know: else, they might attempt to pass me in a narrow aisle... then they would know. Or, God forbid they might have to help me up if I have fallen... "Help me, I have fallen and I can't get up." When "the girls" were young they used to have "Weeble Wobbles," need I say more?
Please remember that even if at times I treat this subject lightly, I really am serious. And I also want you to know that I am not trying to (on purpose) offend, after all I am one of you and we share the same condition: because of that you all are my "peeps." And... seriously... who wants to make one of their "peeps" mad?
Remember again that I wanted to have a message where I exposed some sacred cows within the church. If need be, go back and read an earlier blog or look up that term so you can be sure you know what it means. In that way you will see that this point fits in rather well with something that is obvious, but never spoken of. Tonight's subject, more than any other so far will be that "elephant in the room." (pun intended) The hardest decision I had to make though was whether to include this at all in my five part message, and it has nothing to do with the fact that I am involved in it. It has to do with whether I can with assurance declare this as sin... and please don't get ahead of me with verses that just popped into your mind, I will type the reason for that in a little while.
You see, when I decided to write a message and say that I had five points, it wasn't that I had five points at that time: it is just that I knew that I could easily come up with five points to talk about. In fact I could probably come up with two dozen or more on this subject. So, each day as I drive to work I am thinking about and discarding or keeping different thoughts I have. A couple of days ago when I knew that I was about to finish my second point I started coming up with my third one.
Saturday I settled on this one and I started thinking it through from all angles, then yesterday I had a new thought that made me reconsider whether or not a lot of what I had planned to write was even sin or not, in light of the Bible.
After careful consideration I felt that as long as I am able to put into words my thoughts, then "yes" it is sin and something that needs to be dealt with. Tonight, at no extra cost to you I am even going to give you a brand-new axiom. I know it's new because I made it up for this blog. Although, I make no pretense about having any original thought. So, somewhere out there I am sure this has been said before. To explain where I had the idea for this I need to give you a brief history.
Several years ago I was taking flying lessons. Early on, probably after six or seven hours of flight we were about 5,000 feet in the air when he had me to start practicing stalls. The reason for this is so that you will be prepared as a pilot if the engine on your plane stalls in mid-flight. I would pull back on the yoke and the nose would point upward and as speed decreased, the engine would stall... then I would push the yoke forward and force the nose of the plane toward the ground... as the plane began to accelerate I would restart the engine. Now, as I was doing this I was instructed to be looking at the ground and to be trying to find a suitable spot to land. This was in case the engine failed to start. It is imperative that you have as much air between you and the ground as possible. At this point you are hoping that the wings have caught some air and you are in control of a glider and not a rock, apparently it is hard to fly a rock.
Probably after four or five stalls in quick succession he said to me what all instructors have said to all students. He said, "There are old pilots, and there are bold pilots, but there are no old, bold, pilots."
Now to my axiom. Years ago and at sundry times I have taken a lot of young people to visit the elderly in nursing homes. We would take gifts, cards, stuffed animals, etc. and we would read, pray, talk, and just be a companion for a brief time to the aged and lonely. Because of my keen powers of observation (lol---private joke) I noticed something... and here is my axiom: "There are old people, and there are fat people, but there are no old, fat, people."
Of course what I am talking about in this blog is being overweight and that being sin before God. And that is where my thoughts stalled Saturday as it dawned on me as I was searching my mind for verses that supported this position and I could find nowhere in the Bible where being overweight is condemned: what is condemned is gluttony... and I will prove to you that they are not necessarily one and the same thing. Simply put: gluttony is excess in eating or drinking. Perhaps this generation and for the first time in history could well be overweight and still not eat to excess. It could well be moderate eating, but poor choices in what is eaten.
So, here was my dilemma: Is it sin if we give thanks for food God permits, eat moderately, and the outcome is being overweight? And, sadly to say I believe the answer is "yes." Let me show you why.
In the past, before processed foods, the only way people could get fat was to be gluttonous. That's why the Bible condemned it as all things were to be done in moderation. Let me give you an illustration of today. Let's say a person has an 18 hour day and at 6:00 a.m they get a sandwich, side, and coke from McDonald's. Six hours later they get a sandwich, side, and coke from McDonald's lunch menu. And at five o'clock they get another sandwich, side, and coke (My wife and Missy just pulled in out front and I have to help carry in groceries... back in a little.)
I'm back! After their five o'clock meal they stay up until 10:00 p.m. and they eat nothing else. Now, let me ask you an honest question. Does any person reading this believe the person has been gluttonous in their 18 hour day. Here is what they have had in total: three sandwiches, three sides, and three (medium) cokes.
On purpose I did not choose any sandwiches, sides, or drinks that were exceptionally high in their calorie count as I went to the online calorie counter: here is what I found; three sandwiches, sides, and medium drinks have as a calorie count for the day of 3,650 calories!
Therefore, eating in moderation but eating the wrong type of foods can lead to obesity which is only stated as sin if it comes because of voluminous eating. So, can I still honestly before God call this type of eating in moderation and leading to obesity: sin. The answer is yes. Let me tell you why.
In the past 18 months I have seen more doctors than I would have ever hoped to see in ten lifetimes. The last appointment with my regular doctor she told me some things, that, to say the least, were eye-openers. We were talking about chronic obesity and she said that being overweight leads to a "fatty" liver... and that she said can develop into cirrhosis of the liver. Did you get that? As far as the body is concerned, you can get your sustenance from a bottle encased in a brown bag, or, you can be overweight and the body's response is identical: death from cirrhosis. She went on to say that being overweight leads to diabetes, which can lead to amputations, blindness, and even death. Then she said that being overweight leads to heart-disease. Wait a minute. Do you mean that the body behaves the very same way as far as your heart is concerned if you are a pack-a-day smoker or a cheeseburger a day eater.
Look, let me ask all preachers a question. Why is smoking cigarettes wrong? The Bible nowhere mentions tobacco or its use. Unless of course you believe that when God said that upon meeting Isaac... Rebekah... lighted off the camel. Genesis 24:64b. (Sorry, that's my feeble attempt at a joke.)
Now, you are right to decry tobacco use, and the only reason is that it is harmful to the body! And it is right to decry being overweight, regardless if you got there by moderate eating, or gluttonous eating: it is because being overweight is harmful to the body!
Perhaps it would be a good thing that the next time you see someone who is overweight that you do not automatically jump to the conclusion that they consume Big Macs like M&M's. And it might also be a good thing to see someone using tobacco and alcohol and imagine that it has at least the same hold on them that fast -food has on you.
Dr. Hutson used to tell a funny story about his poor food choices. And I sometimes believe that in our hectic lives we choose badly because it is the easier thing to do: but easier is not usually right. He said that he so often ate at McDonald's that he had developed arches between his shoulder blades.
If you are reading this and you have a weight problem... regardless how you got there: pray and ask God to help you make better decisions on what you place into this "temple."
I hope you take this in the way it is intended... to be of a help.
Perhaps tomorrow evening I will start my fourth point... as soon as I figure one out... just kidding, and to show you that I am kidding, my fourth point is a much neglected New Testament teaching that causes many prayers to go unanswered.
PART SIX OF POST
WOULD JESUS BE WELCOME IN YOUR CHURCH TODAY--- PART SIX
I am on my second point of this five part message and in order to begin at the beginning of this second point please begin reading part three, before reading this present blog.
July 4, 6:04 p.m.
Before I begin I would like to wish everyone a happy 4th of July! I also told my daughter (Tammy) that I had just gotten in from work and I saw a list of five things my pastor hates. I told her that I just knew "There had to be a reason I attend there." Just kidding, but it really is a good list of things not to like.
Part five I finished with four statements that are commonly used to try and justify people dressing fancy to attend or lead a service in a New Testament church. I further wrote that I actually agreed with all four statements, at least in their content, but not in what is implied by them: or rather how it is intended to be applied to the argument. Now, let's look at each one.
Preaching is an important work, no argument here, but let me ask you something. Does a construction worker wearing jeans, cotton shirt, and hard-hat do "important" work? If you think not, let me ask you again as you are standing atop the lookout at the Empire State building with your family in tow. Perhaps a thousand feet in the air might cause you to reconsider your hasty answer and I bet you at least hope the construction worker thought what he was doing was important as he was building.
Does a brain surgeon wearing paper shoes, pajama pants, top, and a paper hat with a string attached do important work? Again, if it was your brain exposed to the air and he was touching it with his fingers I bet you would think it was very important work.
You see, I believe there is a lot of "important" work being done all of the time by people who are not wearing a shirt and tie. So, the implication that a tie must be worn to convey something being done is important is a false notion.
Before I answer the second question I need to ask any guy or girl reading this a question. Were you married in a church somewhere wearing formal clothing: guys in tuxedo's, girls in wedding dresses? Or, if you are not married have you ever been a best-man or maid-of-honour that would again cause you to dress in formal attire. If neither of the above, have you ever been anywhere that caused you to dress in formal attire? How many of you reading this owns a tux or formal dress?
Guys: is a tuxedo a notch or two above a regular suit? Girls: is a formal dress a notch or two above a regular dress you might wear somewhere, oh let's say to church: for example?
Did you answer "yes?" A tuxedo is better than a regular suit and a formal dress is better than a regular dress. If you agree to both of those statements then please never again use the second sentence to try and encourage someone to "wear their best" to church. "You don't!"
You already agreed that a tuxedo is better than a suit and a formal dress is better than a regular dress: so, if you are not regularly "wearing your best" then according to the previously posed question you are sinning against God. That is if you hold to the thought that we are to "dress up" for church even though no where in the New Testament is such teaching proffered.
I am going to lump statements three and four together, because in essence they are one and the same. Before I answer those though I have a plea. If you ever see me in a restaurant where they require a coat and tie and probably charge a hundred dollars for a meal... please... immediately take me by the arm and rush me to a nearby emergency room. Evidently I have been struck in the head and I must have suffered severe brain trauma. I would have to be a complete fool to pay a hundred dollars for a meal that I would get no more satisfaction from than a $5.00 cheese bread from Little Caesar's.
Okay, let's say for the sake of argument (and so I can get on with this and prove my point) that "yes" I would borrow from the restaurant a coat and tie (since I own neither) and I would wear it during my meal. And let us say that "yes" if a president of the United States wanted to see me, and if I chose to see him, and if he requested me to wear a coat and tie then I would.
Before I answer to those let me say that I would not even turn my head to look across the road if Obama were passing by, let alone ever want to meet him. And from what I have read with Clinton a tie would not have been requested: in fact, I think he must have had a clothing optional policy for the Oval office. Both of those men are baby murdering sons of Belial and I wouldn't spit on them if they were on fire.
However, let's say that Bush (one or two) or President Reagan (if resurrected, otherwise it would be too scary) requested my presence and asked that I wear a tie, then I would. HOWEVER... Do I really need to state the obvious flaw in such a statement about wearing dress clothes to a restaurant or political office must equate to needing to "dress up" for church. Please... think about the big gaping hole in that logic before I am forced to expose it.
Okay, hopefully you already figured it out... otherwise you are absolutely going to smack yourself for not having already gotten it. A political office holder, and (or) a place of business has every right to make up their own rules... A NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH DOES NOT!!!!!!! A pastor and the leaders of any church should never make any prohibitions upon the people of God for attending or serving in any capacity: unless the Bible has made such prohibitions or restrictions. And believe me, I have many times read all of the qualifications listed in the Bible for any blood-bought son-of-God to serve in any capacity... and a dress code is never mentioned, neither is it in any way intimated!
But, somewhere along the line, the lowly servants of God, decided to become "reverends." Okay, you are going to have to pardon me for a minute because I am climbing on top of my soapbox.... whew, that took a little effort... my head is brushing the ceiling and my desk is far below me... now I'm ready.
I absolutely detest and loathe men usurping both a title and praise that belongs to God alone and they steal it for themselves! The word "reverend" is used only once in the entire Bible. Speaking about God the Psalmist declares "holy and reverend is his name." (Psalm 111:9b) No matter how you read that verse... reverend is His name... or, He deserves reverence... either way the title or worship never belongs to man!
I am so fed up with so called preachers. Especially those who quite literally are fleecing the sheep of God. They fill many pulpits in America and it seems that the very worst offenders are regularly on television. I would much rather listen to a ditch-digger, fresh from his job with dirt under his nails and grime on his collar open the Word of God and expound upon its truths than I would any ten evangelists you find on t.v. wearing clothes worth enough money that it would feed a small village of hungry people.
Men like Osteen are an affront before God. You can never understand Scripture or God's plan by lifting verses out of context and trying to teach truth from those. Any Bible truth ever understood will come by following Isaiah 28:10... there is no other way.
Osteen and others are predatory lost men who make their living preying on people who are ignorant of true Bible doctrine. What is called the "health and wealth" Gospel is false teaching to the highest degree. Look, it is clearly not God's will that everyone be made well. Look, don't take my word for it read Luke 4:27 and see what Jesus said. And it most certainly is not His will that everyone have money. Did He, or did not He say, "For ye have the poor with you always..." I could show a hundred different passages and Scripture which teaches the exact same thing.
Read the entire 11th. chapter of Hebrews and see who God describes as true heroes of the faith. I want to call special attention to verse 37 and 38. Now, I want to ask you a question... are these homeless people being described? Let's see: they wore sheepskins, goatskins, they were destitute, and they wandered about in deserts, mountains, dens, and caves of the Earth. Yeah, I guess they were.
Now Osteen and other deceivers would have you believe that they just didn't have the right type of "faith." Otherwise they could have been well and lived in a mansion. So, in Osteen's eyes they are failures. Yet, God said that these heroes of the faith were so great in His eyes that... "Of whom the world was not worthy." In the eyes of God these sick, poor, and homeless people were so good in His eyes that the world was not even worthy of them.
Osteen is just the opposite, he and his teaching is well deserving of this old world. Can you ever imagine a man like him humbling himself as Jesus did and be in a foot-washing service. Oh, come to think of it, a fancy, Nancy boy like him is probably involved in a foot-washing ritual: only for him it's called a pedicure and he probably doles out $50.00 for a poor girl to wash his stinking feet.
My wife just informed me that we have to take the dogs down to the park... it is their time to make their toilet. For a little while yet I am still planning to be ensconced atop my box. I promise before I finish this point that in a little while I will climb down.
8:50 p.m.
We are back from the park and I will type for a few more minutes before we go out to see fireworks.
Some might consider this next part just picking, but so be it. I also do not like that big idiot smile Osteen keeps plastered on his face. You can search the Scriptures in vain trying to find a laughing prophet. I can though show you a crying prophet.
Are you aware that the Bible records many human emotions that God's people went through, and yet in the entire Bible seldom is laughter involved. Example: we see Jesus angry. I can show you many examples but the clearest one is when he fashioned a whip and went through the temple overturning the tables of thieves who were buying and selling in the house of prayer. Jesus is recorded grieving. Remember when He stretched His arms out over Jerusalem and lamented the fact that He would like to have gathered them into His arms as a mother hen would her chicks, but they would not. Several times we can see Him moved with compassion as He fed the hungry and healed the sick. We can see Him reduced to tears and crying at the grave-site of Lazarus.
In point of fact the Lord displayed and had recorded many emotions that He went through as a man... with the exception of one: He never laughed. In fact, it is nowhere recorded that He even smiled: though I like to imagine that He might have. Perhaps when he called a little child to Himself and declared "Suffer little children to come unto me and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God."
Why do you think we know Christ as "a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief... (Isaiah 53:3) and yet men like Osteen, who purport to represent Him have a permanent clown smile tattooed to their face. Do you think they do not see the whole picture?
Look, the Gospel is "Good News" and that needs to be shouted from the rooftops: yet,
(Time for fireworks... back in a little while.)
11:14 and we are back and just finished devotions. Almost always we finish all of our reading and prayers very early in the morning. Today though we could only get in about half of what we normally do so we finished tonight.
As we were walking the floodwall to the river downtown we saw a real UFO. Unidentified Flying Object. I described it on FaceBook.
Christ saves is a wonderful message that needs to be carried to all people. And I am not trying to say that people should walk around continually and appear to be sad or act morose. What I am saying though is that any person is either a blithering idiot, uncaring, or uninformed, if they are truly born again and they are still able to go around smiling all the time.
What do you see when you drive from Southern Indiana across the Second street bridge to Louisville? Late at night as I drive to Louisville to pick up one of my daughters, with Virgil by my side, I don't see the tall buildings and bright lights. I see more than a million souls in the metropolitan area who are waiting to draw their last breath and the vast majority of them will begin their eternity in Hell. And there are only a handful of churches in the area with a strong Gospel message and a good outreach program. Do you still feel like smiling?
You, who are reading this have loved ones that you would die in their place if it were possible... and yet you know that if they die in their present state God will send them to Hell. Still feel like smiling all the time. That is one very easy way to know that Osteen and others like him are fakes. If they truly believed there was both a Heaven and a Hell, they would not laugh their way through life and they would not be nearly as concerned with material wealth and only what happens in this flesh. They would be far more concerned with the soul of men and women and their eternal destination.
Alright, give me a second... I'm getting down... I'm weary with talking about men like Osteen anyway. Okay, I'm off my high perch and I will finish the point about clothes. Keep in mind: the axiom is dead-wrong: "clothes do not make the man."
In finishing this I would just like to point out that the clothes (one set only) that Jesus wore in the desert place was the same clothes he wore when He walked on the water, and the same ones He wore when He went to sleep in the boat and the same ones He wore when He got to the other side (Gennesaret) and began to preach and to heal again. Since it was only one set they were the same ones He then wore when He went to synagogue and taught the people.
Peter preached in fisherman's clothes, Matthew in tax-collector's clothes, Luke in physcian's clothes, and Paul in tent maker's clothes. Look, if you wear a coat and tie, may God richly bless you. I only pray that you are not foolish and spend a lot of money on them. A five dollar tie is much better than a ten dollar tie. And a ten dollar tie is infinitely better than a twenty dollar tie, etc. And I firmly believe that you ought to be able to "ush" with the best of the ushers while wearing said coat and tie: and you ought to be able to "deke" with the best of the deacons, so on and so forth. But please, if you are a tie wearer, don't practice some manmade rule with no Scriptual basis as a reason to stop anyone who chooses not to wear a coat and tie from "ushing" "deking" etc., so on and so forth.
The Lord strongly rebuked the Pharisees for practicing their manmade traditions while laying aside clear teaching from God. I will finish with these thoughts.
For years, Texans, whenever they needed to rally the troops they would cry, "Remember the Alamo." Every red-blooded American who needs to stand strong against Muslim tyranny only needs to say, "Remember 9/11." And you, church member who needs to fight against manmade traditions which do nothing but hinder the Gospel of God... needs to have as your rallying cry, "Remember the ham!" And, you are just going to have to read the whole blog to understand what that means. (LOL)
I might wait until Monday to begin my next point in trying to expose some of the sacred cows that are entrenched in many churches. Goodnight... and God bless.
PART FIVE OF POST
WOULD JESUS BE WELCOME IN YOUR CHURCH TODAY--- PART FIVE
I am working on my second point of my five point message. So, to begin at the beginning of this point, please read parts three and four before reading this portion. Also, I only have a few minutes to work on this before leaving for work. So, I will be adding to this page later this evening when I get in.
July 3, 12:24 p.m.
At the end of part four I was writing about the evangelist who wasted a lot of money on dry-cleaning bills... and he didn't need to do that.
Think about this: next to Christ, who was the greatest preacher ever? In the Scriptures, the Lord told us who it was. In order that I don't have to copiously type just to save you looking up something... I am going to ask you to look up and read Matthew 11:7-15 and I am only going to type a couple of small portions of those passages. Matthew 11:11a "Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist:" So, that answers the question about the greatest person of all next to Christ, now I want you to see how Christ described him. Matthew 11:8 "But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft raiment? behold, they that wear soft clothing are in king's houses."
Think about this: The greatest person who ever walked the Earth as man, ...the man Christ Jesus... wore the clothes of a common working man. Of man born of women... no one was ever greater than John the Baptist... and let's see how he dressed. Matthew 3:4 "And the same John had his raiment of camel's hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins; and his meat was locusts and wild honey."
To be fair I probably wouldn't have wanted to share a snack with John: however, are you beginning to see a pattern here. God's people were not the ones wearing the "soft" (nice) clothing. Those things were worn by many unregenerate and worldly people who lived in king's courts.
Jesus was born in a manger... and wrapped in swaddling clothes... those rags which first adorned His body was later changed to a working man's clothes... but always and forever more... it has to be understood that He never once played "dress up" in His magnificent life!
I trust everyone is keenly aware that from pastor's to the sinners who sit in the pews that the idea of "dressing up" to preach or to attend a service is a fairly recent idea. I am only speaking about what we would call fundamentalists, Baptist, etc. Of course, even in the time of Christ there has always been (and still are prevalent in cold, dead, orthodoxy churches such as the Roman Catholic Church) men who want only to be seen of other men and they play "dress up" all the time. Remember this the next time you see the pope in his pretentious robe while wearing a fish-god hat, then you will understand what I mean.
11:16 p.m.
Just in from work. I will type for a little this evening and hopefully I will be able to finish this point by late tomorrow evening: again after work.
Charles Spurgeon is considered a "prince" of preachers. He had a tremendous intellect and he was an unbelievable preacher and writer. I read his work and I marvel that I don't even have thoughts like he had, let alone the ability to express those thoughts in a manner that is easy to be understood.
In his day he started to see the encroachment of the "lowly" servants of God, i.e., "preachers" beginning to dress to be seen of men, rather than to only preach to be pleasing to God. Read carefully his words: "The preacher who measures himself by his mirror may please a few silly girls, but neither God nor man will long put up with him."
Because there are not verses in the New Testament, nor are there records in church history that show God's men dressing in nice clothes to perform their duties before Him, that is, in pulpits and communities: people have to resort to an appeal for logic. Some do this with trite platitudes. Usually there are at least four: perhaps there are more but I think these four are probably most often used and I have heard them dozens of times. Tell me if you have heard them yourself?
There is no particular order of importance: but for the sake of my writing I am going to list them in order. First: "If you are doing an important work, such as preaching... you ought to dress like it is important work." Have you heard that one?
Let me also hastily say that I too believe that preaching is not only an important work, I firmly believe it is "the most important" work!
Secondly: "You ought to always give your best for God...and that means how you dress also."
Thirdly: "I bet if you were eating at a fancy restaurant you would wear a tie if they told you to."
Fourth: "If the president of the United States wanted to see you, wouldn't you put on a tie for him if he asked you to?"
Tomorrow evening when I get in from work I will take these one at a time and with sound logic I hope to be able to show that none of these four thoughts in any way work well for a preacher trying to use them so he can justify wearing a $500.00 suit into the pulpit. And for some of the charlatan preachers on television... $500.00 wouldn't pay for their tie, let alone the complete suit.
Yet, even before I expose those thoughts and show they actually do not hold up when logic is applied to them... I want to say that if they are read as they are written... exactly and with no hidden meanings... I endorse every one of them wholeheartedly. In other words, I agree and say yes to numbers one, two, three, and four.
Hopefully that will give you something to think about, and tomorrow evening I will start a new blog and answer each one of these in more detail.
Happy Fourth of July to everyone!!!
