The Biblical Examiner
An Examination of Biblical Precepts Involved in Issues at Hand

December 2013


The Other Jesus,

Salvation & the Sinner's Prayer,
Quote from a Confederate Chaplain.
Book Review, "The Great Evangelical Recession",
Gun Control Solution That Makes Sense,
Relevant Christianity?,
Tax Truth,
Communist Chinese Troops on U.S. Soil,
End of America,
Flu shot kills 19-year-old,
Mandatory Mercury Injections
1 Samuel 4,
Fat : )
Mandela's Communist Leadership Role,
Interesting, Putin,
Various updates


I was impressed to present the following by two articles Thomas Williamson placed in his "Northern Landmark Missionary Baptist" newsletter for December, 2013. Though the first article is mine, you will understand its importancaŒe when you read Williamson's articles, "Are Lost Persons Saved by Praying the Sinner's Prayer", and his book review, "The Great Evangelical Recession...". Ray Comfort's "God Has A Wonderful Plan For Your Life. The Myth of the Modern Message" also encourages the below. For free copies of Comfort's book, and/or my "Identifying Identity's Gentile Corruption" with forword by Dr. Joe Morecraft III, send your name and address with your request.)

The church is in serious trouble because it has minimized, ignored, compromised and even denied, the Word of God in the very basic area of regeneration.

May the Lord see fit to send His Spirit of understanding to us, and endow us with His wisdom to correct the spiritual problems that have brought us to our current low level of Christianity that is now good for little more than to be cast out and trodden under the foot of man.

The Other Jesus: The Gospel Perverted

"For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus..." 2 Corinthians 11:4. "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel... and would pervert the gospel of Christ," Galatians 1:6. The warning from God is quite clear: false prophets abound who preach another Jesus, another gospel, a perverted gospel which is no gospel at all. (Mat 7:13, 14.)

We greatly underestimate the enemy of our souls. We can fully expect him to have a false plan of Salvation to present to Bible believers; it will be an exact duplicate of the real thing, yet miss the truth just enough to miss Biblical Salvation. The enemy will not deny the blood atonement nor the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures, yet he will not place the blood atonement in its proper place. Of course, his plan would have to be so close to the truth that it would look exactly like the truth, thereby avoiding detection by even the ‘best scholars.' (From this preacher's experience, only those who have been caught in the deception are readily able to understand the perverted gospel's devastating closeness to the truth yet the lost condition of those in it.)

Though the perverted gospel claims the blood atonement, it avoids it ever so slightly just enough to miss eternal life. Can we expect anything less from the best deceiver ever created, the father of lies?

Please follow as we attempt to look past the apparent perfect message, which makes the perversion so appealing, so that we might see its underlying perversion.

Many who read this will say, "You are splitting hairs." Certainly! The father of lies is an expert at splitting hairs and misusing words. Did he not try to misuse words (OT Scripture) with the Lord Jesus? We can be assured that he will do no less to those today who believe God's Word; what better place to misuse words than in the plan of Salvation? (Mat 4:6) One of the primary responsibilities of a teacher of God's Word is to divide asunder the soul and spirit, and.. the joints and marrow with the word of God. (Heb 4:12.)

This perverted plan probably has come into wide acceptance since the ‘40's. (Undoubtedly, it is deeply rooted in the "Christian" Mystics of old who longed for some kind of a mystical experience with God.) It revolves around various basic instructions:

"You must ask Jesus into your heart to be saved - You must ask Jesus to save you - If you will pray and turn your life over to God, you will be saved - You must pray and trust the Lord to take you to heaven - You must pray and trust the Lord to come into your heart to save you - Receive God (Christ) into your heart, life, &c."

There are abundant variations on this idea, none of which emphasize - most avoid completely - the absolute necessity of hearing, understanding and trusting in the substitutionary death and payment of Christ for our sins. As we will see, all of Scripture points to this "Ask Jesus into your heart" plan of salvation as being the perverted plan of the other Jesus of Paul's warning. (Gal 1:6-9; 2 Cor 11:1-4, 13-15.)

Try to fit the idea of "Ask Jesus into your heart" into the law of the atoning sacrifice in the Old Testament. Were the people commanded to ask the bullock to come into their hearts or to turn their lives over to the bullock? (Lev 1:4.) The only thing that will work according to the Old Testament sacrificial law is trust in the Sinless Sacrifice to pay the sin debt in the place of the repentant sinner. All of the Lord's statements, e.g., John 3, must be viewed in the light of the Old Testament sacrificial law.

"Implicit in this justification is the substitutionary sacrifice for sin sincerely offered as noted in Ps 51:16-19. The righteousness of God's heirs of salvation is the righteousness of the Messiah attributed to them by God through faith in the redemptive work of Messiah in which God declares them righteous only because of the grace provided through that redemptive work." (TWOT, Moody Press, pg. 755.) This could not be any clearer. Any other emphasis is the devil's lie.

The perverted gospel seemingly has all of the right words, feelings and works. (2 Cor 4:3-6.) Its counterfeit is so perfect that only a supernatural work of the Holy Spirit can separate it from the truth. The true plan of Salvation was best described by C.H. Spurgeon:

"The gospel is that Jesus Christ suffered in the place of all sinners who trust Him as their Saviour; that He endured what they ought to have endured and made atonement to God for all the sins that they would ever commit; and if you thus trust Him, you are saved. The simple act of relying upon Jesus as your Substitute and Saviour puts away your guilt and sin forever." He continues, "...Pride must come down, self- righteousness must die, and the sinner must glorify the grace of God by knowing that he has no merit of his own, or he cannot be saved. ...Say, `Lord, I deserve to die; I deserve to perish; I deserve to be destroyed. I will have no cavils with Thee about my sentence, for how can a worm dispute with the Almighty? Who am I that I should reply against my Maker?'

"When you have taken that position, rely upon the freeness of divine grace. Grasp, as with a death-clutch, this great fact and say, ‘Lord, Thou dost forgive sinners for Thine own name's sake. Thou canst not find anything in us that is good, anything that can move Thee to pity! But, oh, by Thy mercy and Thy love, let men see what a gracious God thou art! For Thy great name's sake have mercy upon us, and save us!'

"You can plead that Jesus said, `Him that cometh to me, I will in no wise cast out.' [Jn 6:37] And that he has bidden his servants say, `Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved;

"...Let the wicked forsake his ways, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; and let him return unto the Lord, and He will have mercy upon him; and to our God for He will abundantly pardon.

"I cast aside all my former confidences, and all my boastings, and come as the worst sinner must come, for I feel that, in some respects, I am the worst sinner who ever came to thee. I come as an utterly lost, undone, bankrupt sinner, and I look to the atoning sacrifice of Jesus for all I need." (Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Vol. 53, Sermon "Rule of Grace," pp 500-502, Pilgrim Publications, Pasadena TX.)


First, one must understand that he is a sinner without hope. Second, he must recognize that he can do nothing at all to avoid the wages of his sin. Third, he must understand that Christ paid all the penalty for his sin through His atoning sacrifice, enduring what he should endure. Fourth, the sinner must rely upon Jesus as his Substitute for his sins and as his Saviour, and confess his faith verbally. Fifth, this simple act puts away the guilt of sin forever.

Anything less than the above is not Biblical Salvation. If those basic things are not made clear to the sinner before he makes a profession, then how can he be saved? (Eph 1:12-14.)

The sinner is saved because he has trusted in what Christ has already done; he has trusted in Christ to pay his debt for him, to pay what he should have paid: "To endure what he ought to have endured." Then the Spirit of Christ comes to dwell in the heart of the believer. One is not saved because he asks the Spirit of Christ to come to dwell in him. If Salvation were the result of asking the Spirit of Christ to come dwell in a person, there would have been no need of the atoning sacrifice of Christ.

Notice the order in Ephesians 1:13, 14, "In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, Which is the earnest of our inheritance..." It matters not how much the sinner wept, the degree of conviction, his sincerity or the intensity of the emotional experience involved, if the substitutionary payment of Christ's atoning work was not made understandably clear, how could he trust in something he did not know about, nor understand?

We fail to recognize the tenacity of our soul's enemy. Luke 9 records a man who brought his son to Jesus for help, and right at the feet of Christ, the devil made a final effort for the boy. "And as he was yet a coming, the devil threw him down, and tare him." (v. 42.) The enemy has not changed! Many with the world's best intentions have been offered something else by the devil as a last ditch effort to keep them from understanding and trusting in the atoning sacrifice of Christ.

I heard a very well-known pastor preach "Trust Christ as your Saviour," yet his people spread the "gospel" as "You must ask Jesus into your heart to be saved." Where is the Salvation in that message? The simplicity that is in Christ is "You must trust Christ to pay the penalty of your sin." The other Jesus is: "You must trust Jesus to come into your heart." Look at the two completely different things for which Christ is being trusted: one, you are trusting Him to pay the penalty for your sin; the other, you are trusting Him to come into your heart. There is a clear distinction between the two.

The argument arises, "Brother Need, you are arguing over semantics. All the best scholars agree that the two mean the same." Being without Scriptural foundation, their argument is heretical because there is not one contextual Scripture which will support Salvation as a result of trusting Christ to come into one's heart. A text without a context is a pretext. (2 Pe 3:16.)

Obviously, the dividing line between the two plans is only a hair's width, maybe only a word or two. But let us be reminded that our enemy specializes in splitting hairs and misusing words. His specialty is making a verse say something that it does not actually say.

In his attempt to justify the perverted gospel, there are many verses offered by the devil which are commonly wrested from their context: "Behold I stand at the door and knock..." (Rev 3:20.) Notice the context is speaking to a church with no reference at all to Salvation; therefore, any effort to make it say more than it does is similar to Satan's efforts against the Lord. "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved..." shows the result of trusting Christ as one's Substitute and Saviour. Any effort to make it stand alone not only does great harm to the context, but removes Salvation from the passage. (Rom 10:9-14.) "But as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name..." (Jn 1:12.) Within the context of the gospel, this is receiving His redemptive work as payment for our sins in our stead. To use it as "receiving Him into our hearts" changes the plan of Salvation and makes Salvation a result of Jesus coming into one's hearts, which cannot be. The Spirit of Christ coming into the believer's heart is a result of Salvation.

John 3:16 is probably one of the greatest verses in Scripture. But again, the devil is no fool as he uses even this precious verse to present his another Jesus. How? By changing the meaning of a word. The meanings of words change with their usage. Again, the dividing line is only a hair, a word or two, but enough to miss Salvation.

I have read how new editions of the dictionary are assembled. The editors have "listening stations" all over the country, and when the usage of a word changes enough, the dictionary is updated. An example of this would be II Thessalonians 2:7, where "letteth" means "hinder," but today, this word means "to permit." The Scripture gives us a fixed language where the meanings of words like "letteth", "believe" and many others, do not change. However, the meanings of these same words have changed in our usage over the years, and is reflected in our dictionaries. Our enemy then uses these changes to subtly present his another Jesus.

Note the word believe: The usage of this word today indicates, "to believe something as a historical fact." James 2:19 points out that the devils believe there is a God - they know the fact that He exists. A good secular humanist education is required to know more than the devils do, for that education teaches them that there is no God. Scripture tells us that even the devils will bear witness to who He is and that they will confess and praise Him, but He will not accept their praise. Therefore, just because someone acknowledges, confesses or praises God and Christ does not mean he loves God or is saved. (Mat 8:29, Ma 1:23, 24, 3:11, 5:7, Lu 8:28, Ac 16:16, 17, 19:5.)

Consequently, if a person claims for Salvation, "I believe Christ died, was buried and rose again for sinners and I now confess that with my mouth," he could have nothing more than the devils' belief. The Bible definition of the word "believe" must be trust or reliance. Thus Paul's statement, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved..." (Acts 16:31), would mean to place one's complete trust or reliance in His payment for his sins, "To endure what we ought to endure." Anything less is not Biblical Salvation.

Matthew 7:21-23 strikes at the heart of the matter. First, "Not everyone that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven..." The sinner might have cried out, "Lord, save me," or, "Lord, I trust you to come into my heart and save me", but he did not have a clear understanding of the substitutionary, redemptive work of Christ. Or maybe he did not have the Holy Spirit's light to enable him to understand the substitutionary death and payment for his sins. (1 Cor 2:10-16, 2 Cor 4:3-6. God's judgment will be according to His one standard of truth, Rom 2.) Whatever is prayed must be firmly grounded in understanding and receiving what Christ has done for the sinner, or they will hear, "I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. (Mat 7:23.) "Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:" (Mat 25:41.)

An objection to our argument for the necessity of a clear understanding of Christ's work might be: "I didn't understand about Christ's redemptive work when I made my profession, but I do now, so I'm OK." Observe: Ephesians 1:13, "In whom ye also trusted heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation;" Romans 10:14, "How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed (trusted)? and how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard?; So then faith cometh by hearing..." Clearly, according to God's word, trust and reliance, thus Salvation, can only come after hearing and understanding the truth of Christ's atoning work.

Another objection might be "Well, how about children? The atoning work of Christ for the sinner and the sinner's trust in His atoning work is too difficult for them to understand; therefore, we must place it down on their level by telling them they must have Jesus in their hearts."

It is an absurd devil's lie to say that the Lord has provided two plans of Salvation: one for children, one for adults. Romans 2 clearly tells us that all judgment is according to God's one standard of truth. Furthermore, when we lower the gospel to the level of natural understanding, we depart from the truth and exclude the Spirit of God from regeneration. Is not one of the reasons for standing against modern perversions of the Scripture their reduction to the level of the natural man? In an honest evaluation, rather than placing the true plan of redemption through Christ's atoning work on a child's level, we see the false child's plan ask Jesus into your heart, &c., brought to an adult level.

Note that we are not speaking against reaching children for the Lord. Obviously, our future hope lies in reaching young people for the Kingdom's sake and teaching them to observe all the Lord's commands. We must do all we can to reach children for Christ, (Lk 18:6) but for us to say there is a way for anyone to come to Christ other than through trust in His substitutionary death corrupts Christ's words "And him that cometh to me, I will in no wise cast out." Everlasting life comes only through trusting Christ as our Substitute and Saviour. We cannot add or detract anything, for His revealed plan is complete. (Jn 6:40, Rev 22:19)

Consider this example. A little girl about six years old heard (in a "Children's Church"?) that she had to have Jesus in her heart in order to be saved. She expressed her desire to her mother and followed her mother's instructions to ask Jesus into her heart. Her mother then assured her that she was saved.

Only by violently wresting Scriptures beyond all recognition from their obvious contexts can we believe that there is any Scriptural redemption in the actions of the little girl. (Wrested, we might add, to the destruction of all involved, Ps 56:5, 2 Pe 3:16.) We cannot find one hint in contextual Scripture that this "gospel" will save anyone. Certainly, the believer has "Christ in him, the hope of glory", but only as the result of trusting Christ as his sin-bearer or substitute. (Col 1:27.)

I know whereof I speak: I had charge of three separate children's churches of 150+ each back in my days as a "bus and ‘soul-winning' director"; back when bus ministries were big, ‘60s & ‘70s. Over my years in the "bus ministry", I can remember no "bus families" who became faithful church members, nor bus kids who matured to consistent Christians, though I certainly had high hopes for many of them. I know there were exceptions And I spent 4 days a week in "door to door" visitation. The "bus ministries" drove those three churches into financial ruin, and they exist no more. What happened to the tens of thousands of "bus kids" who were persuaded to "Ask Jesus into their hearts"? And, sadly, I did my share of persuading.

To tell a child, as this mother and multitudes of Children Church works did, that she can be saved by "asking Jesus into her heart" presents to her the other Jesus. Although the other Jesus undoubtedly did come into the girl's heart with good feelings and works, he is not the One Who died for sinners. We receive that Spirit of Christ by trusting in His payment for our sins, not by asking Him into our hearts. Jesus Christ lives in the believer only through faith in His atoning work, not as a result of faith in a prayer. (Ac 20:29, 2 Cor 13:5.)

Have we not been warned that Satan passes himself off as an apostle of Christ and a minister of righteousness? He may even stand in the pulpit preaching righteousness, but, regardless of his righteous appearance, the total of Scripture exposes him for what he is: a false teacher if he does not clearly present the only hope for the sinner; that is, trust in the finished work of Christ alone. (2 Pe 2:1-3.)

The master deceiver

Remember, Satan is a master deceiver; he is a liar and the father of lies. A deceiver imitates and/or misuses truth; therefore, Satan counterfeits every spiritual gift of Romans 12 and Galatians 5. As a deceiver, his specialty is not obvious works of the flesh; rather, it is "truth" misused to serve his purpose. He truthfully said to Eve, "You shall not surely die", for the fruit was not poison. But separation from God, sin and death entered into the world as a result of the deception. (1 Tim 2.)

What would the enemy do to prevent one from seeing and/or acting on his need of the substitutionary death of Christ? Would he not give any necessary feeling and good works to prevent one from coming to Christ as his Substitute and Saviour? Would he not give "conviction of sin" if that "feeling" would draw a person away from Christ and to something else? He is the deceiver and an expert at using peoples' emotions. (Rev 12:9. The devil is a spirit, specializing in working with man's spirit against God's spirit.) Also, one's refusal to believe that he can be deceived will give the enemy greater ability to draw him away from the truth. (2 Tim 3:13, Ja 1:22.)

The little girl, unless the Spirit intervenes, will always look back and say, "I'm saved because I did what they told me: I asked Jesus into my heart." She may go on to understand the necessity of trusting Christ, but until she gives up what she was told as a six year old, and realizes that she is a lost sinner on her way to hell who must come to Christ to pay for her sins, she will not enter into the Kingdom of God. In other words, we cannot "grow" into Salvation; Christ Himself said, "Ye must be born again". And that even is preceded by the presentation and understanding of Christ's atoning work for them.

Our responsibility is to emphasize, as simply as possible, the atoning work of Christ and the sinner's need to repent and trust in that work for his sin payment. It is the Spirit's responsibility to make it understandable. Anything less than this is another Jesus.

To tell a person he will be saved by "Asking God to forgive his sins and asking Jesus into his heart, then trusting Christ to do that" avoids His atoning work and gives a false assurance of Salvation which will take a supernatural working of the Holy Spirit to remove.

We need to be reminded that the Holy Spirit must convict of sin and open the understanding to the Gospel. Far too often, we try to do the Holy Spirit's work; it is His job to convict of sin and draw the sinner to Christ. If the Spirit's drawing is not present, then in Christ's words, there can be no salvation. (Jn 6:37-45, 15:16, 16:8.)

Matthew 7:21 "...but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." "The will of my Father..." 2 Peter 3:9, "...not God's will that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." (See also Luke 13:3-5.) Repentance; that is, turning from the sin for which a person is already condemned. That sin being rejection of Christ as his Substitute and Saviour. (Jn 3:18, 6:39.)

Therefore, God's primary will is that all men should turn from their own ways of salvation to God's way of Salvation. Furthermore, the Father's will is defined in John 6:39, 40: that we believe, i.e. trust in His completed work, on him and, in doing so, have everlasting life.

"There is a way that seemeth right unto man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." It seems right to be saved by "Asking Christ to save you", but the end of that way is death to the sinner if he has not understood and trusted in the atoning work of Christ. The sinner must turn from his way to a complete dependence on God's way. That is through what Christ has done in his place, "the just for the unjust", and accept His payment in the sinners place.

The context of Luke 13:1-5 indicates that the ones to whom the Lord spoke when He said, "I tell you Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish", were religious hypocrites who displayed correct outer actions, yet refused to turn from their way to God's way. (Lk 12:56.)

Hodge gives us an extremely good insight on the religious leaders of Christ's day; they had total assuranceÐthough falseÐof heaven because they were circumcised descendants of Abraham. (Charles Hodge, ROMANS, Geneva Series, Banner of Truth Trust, pg. 63.) Therefore, what the Lord said here were "fighting words" as He spoke His message of repentance to the hypocrites in the hearing of the multitudes. The religious leaders were proud of their self-righteousness, and the Lord continued to reveal the truth of their unrighteous hearts in the hearing of the multitudes..

Matthew 7:21, "...will of my Father..." John 6:29, "Jesus answered and said unto them, this is the work of God, that ye believe [trust] on him whom he hath sent." (Cf. Rev 20:12, 1 Jn 3:23.) The only work that can please the Father and gain eternal life is trusting His Son as our Substitute and Saviour. Thus both the "will" and the "work" of the Father for Salvation is the same, viz. trusting in or receiving what Christ has done for us.

Matthew 7:21-33 tells of a person who had called upon the name of the Lord ("Lord, Lord") without instruction in or understanding the atoning work of Christ for him, and of his necessity of trusting in that work alone for the payment of his sin.

"...Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Thy name..." Many have preached great sermons and "won" many to the Lord. However, a person's preaching of the Gospel or "leading multitudes to the Lord" does not mean he is born again.

"...and in Thy name cast out devils, and in Thy name done many wonderful works." How many of those who will hear "depart from me" have worked bus routes, (you can tell my name, as I "came up" in the bus route era) sung in church choirs, taught Sunday School classes, entered into great missionary endeavors, accomplished tremendous social programs and even held important church offices? The Lord forbids looking back on any wonderful endeavors done in His name with the thought, "I wouldn't be doing all of these things if I weren't saved." (Rev 19:10 "..for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy." Telling others about Christ or "prophecy" does not mean one is saved.)

Notice what the Lord will say to them, "...I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity..." The Lord tells these "Christian workers" that they are workers of iniquity because they had never trusted in the atoning work of Christ.

Revelation 20:10 "And the devil that deceived them..." The devil is smart! He will not come as a roaring lion to Bible believers who profess to love God; he will come as a purring kitten, as a minister of righteousness, as a minister of Christ. He will not come with a blatant departure from the truth. He will come in crabways along beside the truth with something that looks, sounds and feels like the truth. He will attempt to present his message as being the same as the truth, but, when exposed to the light of God's total word, it is clearly not the truth.

Both Paul and Peter warn of heresies, i.e. an erroneous opinion which is a substitute for the truth, that might accompany the truth within the church. (1 Cor 11:19, 2 Pet 2:1-3.) They warn of a quiet subverting of the Gospel from the atoning work of Christ by something that approximates the truth. For an excellent treatment of heresies, see "Barnes' Notes, James-Jude," p 236, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI. Online Bible also.)

Heresy is not an obvious departure from sound doctrine. Predominately, heresy is something passed off as, and accepted along with the truth. It is among you, from within the fellowship of believers, not from without. "Privily" speaks of the very "subtle" manner of introduction. Our enemy is an expert at bringing in his subtle departure from the truth completely unnoticed until he has control. (See "Vine's Dictionary" treatment of Heresy, p 574, and Privily, p 887, Riverside Book and Bible House, Iowa Falls, IA.)

If a person feels he is saved because he has "Asked Jesus to come into his heart and life and has trusted Him to do that (&c.)," yet at the time was not properly instructed in the necessity of trusting Christ as his Substitute and Saviour, then there is a problem. There can be no Salvation apart from the clear instruction of what Christ has done for the sinner and his trust in Him to take the sinner's place.

Now what

Philippians 2:12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

As we have presented the preceding message to church members, we have seen the Spirit work to bring questions in the hearts of many individuals. Our purpose is not to create confusion; our purpose is most certainly to shake those things which can be shaken. (Heb 12:27.) Here is what we suggest for those who feel shaken over the preceding message: 1) they should put aside everything they have been taught, 2) they should lay aside all confidences in the flesh which they might receive from their good works, 3) they should lay aside all assurance that others might try to give them, e.g., "If anyone is saved, you are."

Then they should completely read the Book of John at least once with a burning desire for the Lord to speak to them regardless of what they believe or want to believe. Furthermore, they should ask God to take away anything they might be depending upon other than Christ. They should ask God to reveal their true condition to themselves either by taking away all false assurance or by giving a firm passage for assurance. All of these suggestions are based upon 2 Corinthians 4:3-6 and Philippians 3:15 claiming the work and light of the Holy Spirit to reveal the truth about one's Salvation.

Through prayer and searching of the Word, we have seen God move in great ways, opening the individual's understanding of the work of Christ for him, and then the sinner fleeing to Christ as his Substitute and Saviour.

No doubt the NUMBER ONE lie among Bible-believing people today is: "You must ask Jesus into your heart to be saved and trust him to do that (come into your heart)," &c. But look at what this is saying! "You are saved because you asked Jesus into your heart." There is no Scriptural support for this false plan of salvation which is devastating to the cause of Christ; it places the emphasis upon a prayer that is said and what the sinner can do rather than upon what Christ has done.

An objection might be: "I don't see any difference." Okay, why not change the message to something that reflects the person's placing his trust in the finished work of Christ's substitutionary payment in the sinner's place?

Then the objection might be, "But not everyone is able to understand that message." If we accept this argument, we say we must reduce the Gospel to the level of the natural man, removing from it the work of the Holy Spirit.

What has happened to the plain, simple and clear plan of salvation as preached by past saints of God? "...The simple act of relying upon Jesus as your Substitute and Saviour puts away your guilt and sin forever... (CHS)" It cannot be said any better.

Converting salvation is not an act of praying, but it is an act of faith. There will be none in heaven because they prayed and turned their lives over to God or because they asked the Lord to save them, &c. We will be there only because of what Christ did for us and our simple faith in His work which was verbalized when we prayed. A lost person's growth into this faith, such as "I didn't understand back then, but I do now", is no more possible than is evolution. The Scripture teaches a new creation and a new birth, not an evolution of the old. The enemy, a master deceiver, knows and uses our weak points. (Gen 3:1, Jn 8:44.)

Proper Action

First, one must realize he is a sinner without hope. Second, he must recognize that he can do nothing at all to avoid the wages of that sin. Third, Christ paid it all through His atoning sacrifice, enduring what we should endure. Fourth, the sinner must rely upon Jesus as his Substitute for his sins and as his Saviour, confessing this verbally. Fifth, this simple act puts away all guilt of sin forever. This action of the heart is verbalized when one prays and puts his complete trust in the Lord Jesus Christ to pay the penalty for his sins.

I have found that the deception dealt with above is so well entrenched today that a one-time confrontation against this false doctrine has very little effect upon it. It took a consistent confrontation over a period of many months before the Holy Spirit was able to start exposing this lie with His truth when I became pastor of the Linden Baptist Church. When He started moving, we saw over 50% of our church members saved. Though several families left the church over another issue, Scofieldism, they all remain faithful to the Lord. His Word is a hammer, and the stronger the grip of false doctrine, the more it must be hammered at and chipped away a little at a time. The first time this rock is struck there may not even be a chip, but it will break if we do not grow weary.

Hardness & Hostility

A man who represented Accelerated Christian Education (ACE) in our area once told me in the midst of an intense discussion about the plan of salvation presented in ACE's material: "All the best scholars agree that the terms are the same--Ask Jesus into your heart and trust Christ as your substitute." He went on to say that if what we were saying was correct, then he was lost. That ended the conversation, for it was then obvious he was not defending God's Word, but he was defending a false profession.

We confronted a missionary who worked with a printing ministry in the South over the false plan of Salvation used in their materials. After a lengthy, heated discussion, he said that he had asked Jesus into his heart here in our church many years ago, and if that did not save him, then he was not saved.

We have found that those who become the most `hostile' over the above message are more often than not unsaved themselves. They defend their own false profession of faith as surely as a man defends a strong city. Normally, their defense is not Scriptural, and if they admit that what is presented herein is true, they must admit that what they have is false. On the other hand, those who have trusted Christ rejoice over the message contained herein.

Not one time in Scripture is there even a hint that one can be saved by asking Jesus into his heart, nor will we find instruction to turn our lives over to Him for Salvation; it is a false plan of salvation being used by the devil to draw multitudes down the broad road to destruction.

The man from ACE said, "Boy, you sure are narrow!" when I would not consider any argument except Scripture. Yes! I am. Furthermore, the Lord was very narrow, calling all others thieves and robbers. (Jn 10.)

A Personal testimony

I realize many who read this will probably not understand what I am trying to say. But, obviously, the risk is far too great to dismiss this lightly.

Though I am apprehensive about mentioning personal experience (the Spirit deals with individuals as individuals), I think it would be useful to mention that the above is written from personal experience. This preacher was "deceived" by this other gospel for many years.

Whereas there are "other gospels" which are just as dangerous as the one presented herein, this one appears to be the most prevalent today. Our prayer is that the Holy Spirit might see fit to use our message to perform the same work in others which He did in this preacher's life at 11:30 A.M., Oct. 29, 1977. Please do not attempt to compare experiences, for our only comparison must be with the Word of God. The Lord deals with unique individuals, and calls each to Himself in His unique way within the bounds of His Word.

When I got out of the Service in 1965, I worked construction during the day and took some evening Bible College courses. Our church had a large bus ministry, and the head of the bus ministry, Jim Vineyard, talked me into driving a bus, then into taking a bus route. The Lord allowed a successful bus route, so successful in fact, that when he left I was asked to take over the large ministry, and the children's church. While I was there, the Lord dealt with my heart about salvation.

My dad was a lay-pastor, and in one of his "revival" meetings, I had gone forward as a nine-year old child. I am certain I went through all the proper religious motions because my dad baptized me at a local strip mine at that time. (Southern Indiana.) As I got older, I could remember nothing about it, and the message I kept hearing was, "If you can't remember asking Jesus into your heart, then you aren't saved." I could not remember, so one evening, in deep emotional distress, I went to one of my instructors saying, "I need to talk to you." He took me into his office and I told him, "I'm not saved."

"Ovid" he said, "if anyone is saved, you are."

I replied, "No, I'm not. Show me how to be saved." He proceeded to show me that I needed to ask Jesus into my heart which I did.

The Lord moved us to another church where, once again, I was placed in charge of the "soul-winning" visitation, bus ministry and children's church. With very few exceptions, each Sunday we had someone whom we had "led to the Lord" in their homes, walk down the aisle and publicly profess asking Jesus into their hearts. But they did not remain committed to their profession of Christianity.

After three years, we went onto the staff of another church and again were given charge of the soul-winning, visitation program and children's church. Here my job included door-to-door "soul-winning," as well as following up the new children from the buses. I spent six hours a day, five days a week, doing this. As a reminder of my foolishness, I have kept the record of close to 1,000 names and addresses of those whom I led to pray, "Jesus, come into my heart, and save me." The only reason I mention this is to point out that, in this particular area, I am not a novice: I have been there.

But I noticed something different about the pastor at this new church. He used a soul-winning plan called "Circles and Steps" which he picked up from Tom Wallace. I saw the difference in this presentation as he pointed out the necessity of the substitutionary death of Christ before he said to the prospect, "If you are willing to trust Christ as your Saviour, take my hand."

I felt this was a much better way of presenting the Gospel, so I changed the plan I used from "Ask Jesus into your heart to save you," to "Take my hand to show you are trusting in Christ as your Substitute and Saviour."

I had no problems with my salvation until my pastor and I held a Christian workers' conference in a little church in Missouri beside the Mississippi River. At the conference, I was teaching a class on soul-winning and was speaking about how so many people believed they are saved because they had walked down the aisles, shook the preacher's hand and told him they believed that Christ died and rose again. (Romans 10:9, 10.) Then they would go on to be baptized, yet their sincerity didn't save them. A lady on the back row raised her hand and said, "If that's true, then I'm not saved." Others raised their hands speaking in agreement with her.

I had to call in my pastor for help in pointing them to trust in Christ. Everyone in attendance that afternoon made a profession except the host church's pastor, his wife, and a visiting pastor's wife. Forty five Christian workers from that area's churches gave up their prayer for salvation, and confessed Christ as their substitute and saviour.

As we made the 10-hour drive back home the following day, I was devastated, and wept most of the way. The question which kept burdening my heart was, "How could so many good, sincere people be so wrong?"

The next day, as we met with our ladies to send them out soul-winning, I told of what had happened in Missouri. As I did, I saw the lady who was in charge of our church's nursery program began weeping. I gave an invitation, and she raised her hand. I sent her to my office to talk to her after dismissing the others. As I walked into the office, she said, "You got me, didn't you?" Surprised over what happened and presenting the truth of Christ to her, she professed faith in Christ.

Later that day, as I drove back to the church following some hospital visits, the thought occurred to me: "Ovid, how do you know you are going to heaven?"

"Because I have asked Jesus into my heart," was my reply, knowing that was not the right answer. I was then reminded that I had just presented the truth in Christ to a lady who gave up the very thing I was pleading for my righteousness.

I wrestled with the matter, arguing, "I wouldn't be soul-winning every day if I weren't saved.. I wouldn't be teaching the adult Bible Class.. I wouldn't be scheduled to be ordained if I weren't saved." (At this point I was the Associate Pastor, had been licensed by the church, was doing most of the baptisms and was going to be ordained in a few weeks.) "I wouldn't be doing all of these Bible-based religious activities if I weren't saved."

We had taken a $600-per-month cut in pay to come to this church, which was a big cut in 1975. I was spending four hours each morning with the Lord, as well as fasting and spending one night a week in prayer. As I thought on these things, I understood that I was basing my Salvation upon all of my good works. ("I wouldn't be doing all these things if I weren't saved.") Furthermore, I remembered that God was not and would not be impressed with my good deeds.

Still not wanting to give in, I fled to some standard excuses which I had confronted so many times in others: "Well, I didn't understand about the substitutionary death back then, but I do now." Then I remembered that we do not believe in evolution. The final argument to fall was, "What will people think?" The answer to this was the one I had used so many times with others: "Which is worse, hell or what people think?" (My answers were all answers that I had used to convince others of their lost conditions. My own arguments were coming back against my false hope.)

I put off a decision for another day, until Saturday morning. When I could avoid the issue no longer, I called the pastor at his office. He came into my office, and I told him I had to be saved. His response was that he knew, for every time he had asked me how I knew I was saved, I had answered, "Because I prayed and ask the Lord to save me," or, "Because I prayed and accepted Jesus Christ into my heart and life." I saw myself that morning as one who was trying to climb into heaven by some means other than through trusting the redemptive work of Christ for me.

This pastor was caught in the trap; I must say with Paul in Philippians 3: I now count it all lost. I had spent 12 years under this false Plan of Salvation; I taught it, practiced it and told people by the thousands that they would be saved if they would "pray the sinner's prayer". All the time, I had nothing and probably gave them the same nothing. (Note that words do not save: One can pray "Mary had a little lamb", and if he is professing his heart trust in the work of Christ, redemption is his.)

I fled to Romans 10:13 and Revelation 3:20, but using them alone wrests them from their contexts. Romans 10:13 is based on Romans 5:8 and 10:9-13, Revelation 3:20 is to a specific church. Anything less than a clear presentation of the atoning work of Christ is not the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is another Jesus. (2 Cor 11:3, Gal 1:6.) Anything less than trust in what He has done is not Biblical Salvation. Every Bible scholar in the world can say differently, but that will not change God's Word - In Paul's words, "Yea, let God be true and every man a liar..." (Rom 3:4.) It is not possible to be saved unless God's plan is first clearly heard and understood.

Finally, do not compare experiences with anything except what is clearly presented in God's word.

(The above is freely available in a small booklet.)

Are Lost Persons Saved by Praying the Sinner's Prayer?

By Thomas Williamson

In 2006, Gina Welch, who was born and raised an atheist Jew (and is still an atheist) made a profession of faith in Christ at Thomas Road Baptist Church in Lynchburg, Virginia, was baptized, joined the church, and participated in an evangelistic mission trip to Alaska.

Her purpose in joining the church was to find out what evangelical Christians are really like, and to publish her findings in a book "In the Land of Believers," which came out in 2010.

Her impressions of Thomas Road were mostly positive. She found the people of the church, from Pastor Jerry Falwell on down, to be mostly likable and sincere folks.

One thing that Welch emphasizes in the book is that the people of Thomas Road believe that sinners can be saved from hell by getting them to pray a "Sinner's Prayer," or by getting them to follow along as a soul-winner prays that prayer on their behalf.

She quotes a Pastor Ray as saying, "The Devil doesn't mind us talking about Jesus, but he knows that once we get somebody to pray that sinner's prayer - they're gone."

She describes the evangelistic appeal at a VBS meeting for small children in Anchorage, Alaska: "'Who wants to go to heaven?' . . . She gave the invitation, asking the children to repeat the sinner's prayer in their heads if they were ready to accept Jesus into their hearts.

After the prayer, she asked them to keep their eyes closed but raise their hands if they had prayed with her. I counted 18 hands." The evangelistic team counted 101 souls saved in their Alaska outreach.

These consisted almost entirely either of small children or of street people who were persuaded to pray the sinner's prayer or to allow a Thomas Road worker to pray it on their behalf.

At the Anchorage Gospel Rescue Mission, Pastor Ray "invited those who hadn't yet received Jesus as their personal savior to repeat the sinner's prayer in their minds as Ray said it. ‘Heavenly Father, we love you. Thank you for loving us. . . . One woman said the prayer aloud. Later, Ray told us that when he asked those who had prayed the prayer to lift their hands he had counted 23."

Later, Gina discussed this mission trip with her mother. "I told her about how we'd gone about keeping track of the people we saved in Alaska. She asked me the question my stepfather had asked her. How can you know if you've saved someone if there's never follow-up, never counseling, never a progress report? How can you be sure the person hasn't instantly reverted to his old ways? In other words, aren't you simply counting the people who prayed the prayer in that instant rather than counting new Christians?

"'Well,' I replied, ‘if you're a Christian you believe all it takes is that instant, as long as you're sincere. Once you've prayed the sinner's prayer, you're good to go. God is supposed to abide in you and guide you, but really your `ways' don't matter. Your name is written forever in the Lamb's Book of Life.'

"The noise on the phone was like the bristled air on a tape recording of silence. `Uh-huh,' she said.

"I knew what was behind that dismissal; to her, it seemed evident that Evangelicals were padding their rosters."

Is it possible that Gina Welch totally misunderstood the soulwinning practices at Thomas Road, or that she deliberately misrepresented them? After all, she is an atheist.

I have no personal knowledge of how they do things at Thomas Road, but her account rings true, based on the things I have seen and heard over the years.

As a young Christian, I was an active member of a Bible church, and would go soul-winning with the pastor or sometimes his son. They diligently tried to get into people's homes so they could attempt to get them to pray the Sinner's Prayer.

Occasionally they would get someone to pray the prayer, but those who prayed never came to church and were not heard from again. I doubted that these people were really being saved. The pastor and his son knew how I felt and they were quite displeased at my snotty attitude.

On one occasion, they were dealing with a woman who said she thought she was already saved, and they persuaded her to pray the sinner's prayer with them, just in case. She dutifully prayed the prayer but she was never again seen in church.

As I recall, one pre-teen boy who prayed the prayer did come to church activities for a while, but then he dropped out and was not seen again. Years later, I got a letter from him, from Florida where he was an inmate in a prison. (Hey, maybe the poor kid really had been saved and then was convicted of a crime he didn't commit - I don't know).

Years later, I attended a soul-winning presentation by the senior pastor and assistant pastor of an unaffiliated independent Landmark Baptist Church that was staunchly fundamentalist (King James Only, no women's slacks, the whole shebang). The assistant pastor played the role of an unsaved Roman Catholic prospect.

The pastor told the "lost" prospect that he wanted him to repeat a prayer with him, and that the purpose of the prayer was so he could reaffirm the faith he had previously received at the time of his infant baptism in the Roman Catholic Church. The "unsaved" man dutifully repeated the words that the pastor asked him to repeat.

Then the pastor asked the "unsaved" man, "Do you know you are saved?" The man said, "Yes." The pastor asked him, "How do you know that you are saved?" The man replied, "Because I prayed that prayer."

My impression is that there is a lot of this teaching going around in Baptist and fundamentalist circles. Some well-meaning people believe that the purpose of soul-winning outreach is to get the prospect to pray the sinner's prayer. There is supposed to be a magical efficacy in that prayer, even for persons who are not under any conviction of sin, who do not feel the need of a Savior, and who do not show any evidence of salvation afterwards, in the short or long term.

I have seen complaints from missionaries who say that their work is being disrupted by soul-winners who are obtaining false and worthless professions of faith from people who have no understanding of the gospel or that they need to be saved from their sins.

For example, there is this report from Phil Gavila of Guadalajara, Mexico, published in the Baptist Monitor an American Baptist Association paper: "Gerardo and Rocio are a couple who came out of the convention where they made a false profession of faith after the so-called soul winner said the sinner's prayer for them. We are thankful for them to put all that behind them and join with us in serving the Lord in seeking the lost."

The world is full of folks like Gerardo and Rocio, who were led by a soul-winner to pray the sinner's prayer and went on from there, in most cases with no evidence of salvation or visible change in their lives.

Maybe it would help if all of us, as Baptists and/or fundamentalists who desire to see souls saved, to have a discussion of the issues involved in this modern emphasis on getting people to pray the sinner's prayer.

If a person prays that prayer and then shows no evidence of salvation, should we presume him to be saved? James answers that question, NO!

"What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? Can faith save him? . . . But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?" - James 2:14, 20.

It is true that in Romans 10:9 Paul says we are saved by confessing with the mouth the Lord Jesus, but in the second half of the verse he also insists that one believe that Christ has been raised from the dead. A verbal confession, without any understanding of the gospel message, is not enough to save. We dare not take an overly literal interpretation of Paul's insistence of verbal confession, which, if pressed too far, would mean that a mute person, without the power of speech, can never be saved.

The "One Two Three, Pray With Me" emphasis ignores the role of the Holy Spirit in convicting sinners of their need for salvation, John 16:8-11. It ignores the need of preaching the Law to sinners, so that they may understand their sinful condition and need of a Savior, Romans 3:19-20.

If all we need to do is pray a prayer and then we are "good to go," why did Peter emphasize the need to make our calling and election sure, 2 Peter 1:10? Why did Paul say it was so important for Christians to maintain good works, Titus 3:8, Ephesians 2:10, 1 Timothy 2:10, 6:18, 2 Timothy 3:17?

Maybe I am missing something, but I cannot think of any instance in the New Testament where any Christian told an unsaved person to "Just repeat after me the words of this prayer, or if you are embarrassed to pray out loud, then just follow along with me silently with your head bowed while I pray, and thou shalt be saved."

Gina Welch came forward in the invitation at Thomas Road Baptist Church. A personal worker prayed the sinner's prayer on her behalf.

Pastor Jerry Falwell announced to the congregation that she had been saved. By her own admission, it didn't work for her. She was not saved and still is not saved.

I suspect that there are millions of Gina Welches in America today, who have made professions of faith in a good fundamental Gospel-preaching church, who have prayed the sinner's prayer or have graciously allowed it to be prayed on their behalf, but are still not saved. I believe that this is a matter of concern for all of us.

(I am all too familiar with the churches mentioned above. I was in that "fundamental Gospel-preaching" movement.)

Quote from a Confederate Chaplain

"The day celebrated for the nativity of my Lord & Savior, Jesus Christ. Twelve months ago I was at home with my little ones & the nation was at peace. Today I am 2,000 miles from home & we are convulsed with war. Oh God what will another year bring forth. ‘Thy will Be done.'"

Chaplain Nicolas A. Davis, Hood's Texas Brigade or the 4th Texas


Fellow Compatriots in the Chaplains' Corps and Friends:

When we consider the incarnation of the Son of God in human flesh we consider that which originated with our God. Yes, Immanuel has come or God is with us. Just think of the work of Christ in the redemption of a people. Christ's victory over Satan was the fulfillment of the first promise and prophecy in the Bible Ð "I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it (lit. ‘he' singular) shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel" (Gen. 3:15). What appeared to be Christ's defeat was actually Satan's defeat and what seemed to be Satan's victory was in reality Christ's victory. Things are not always what they may seem.

The enemy was not merely driven from the battlefield in order to recoup and return to fight another day! The enemy was utterly and completely once-and-for-all defeated. This has reference to the complete victory of Christ Jesus.

Christ engaged in personal combat in our behalf when He entered a period of testing in His early ministry. For then He was tempted of the devil following His baptism. His human nature was tested by a 40 day and night fast (Matt. 4:2), and Satan tempted Him: Christ's deity was questionedÐ "And when the tempter came to Him, he said, If thou be The Son of God, command that these stones be made bread" (Matt. 4:3). All who question Christ's deity are of their father the devil and his works they do. Satan even promised Him (who created all things, John 1:3) all the kingdoms of the world if He would fall down and worship. Jesus demanded: "Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and HIM ONLY SHALT THOU SERVE" (Matt. 4:10). This ended that battle with others to follow.

The Lord Christ came and conquered Satan on his own turf so to speak (although that turf was usurped). Christ won the victory as our representative and headÐ "having spoiled principalities and powers, He made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it" (Col. 2:15).

Christ overcame Satan in us at conversion and He overcame Satan by us after conversion wherein the redeemed are translated into the kingdom of God's dear son (Col. 1:13). Christ's kingdom must destroy Satan'sÐ "And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever" (Rev. 20:10; 19:19-21). Yes, Christ is total victor! "Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth" (Rev. 19:6).

(From "Chaplains' Corps Chronicles of the Sons of Confederate Veterans." Ron Rumberg editor.


"The Great Evangelical Recession - 6 Factors That Will Crash the American Church, and How to Prepare" by John Dickerson

By Thomas Williamson

This book, published in 2013 and hot off the press, presents a sobering assessment of the current strength and future prospects of evangelicalism in America.

Contrary to estimates that 40% of all Americans are evangelicals, the author cites 4 carefully researched surveys showing that only 7% to 9% of Americans are evangelicals. And our movement is in a state of decline. Our society is changing so rapidly, with new forms of communication and information, that companies that were very profitable just a few years ago have gone bankrupt because they failed to adjust to changing trends. The same fate awaits churches, ministries and the entire movement if we do not change with the times.

He states that our American host culture is rapidly changing and becoming hostile to evangelicals, especially over the issue of homosexuality.

He notes that evangelicals are not united, are dedicated to fighting each other, and that many evangelicals are breaking from the Christian Right and adopting more liberal political views. As our unity and numbers decline, our vaunted political power and influence will inevitably evaporate.

He states that financial support of evangelical churches comes mostly from older Christians who are dying off, and that the younger generation will give less. The decline in giving is already apparent, and will lead to bankruptcy for many churches and ministries that are not prepared for it.

He documents the exodus of young Christians from the evangelical movement. He calculates that there are now 3.7 million evangelicals age 18-29, that 2.6 million will leave in the next 10 years, and only 900,000 of them will return as they get older.

He shows that evangelicals are not reproducing - their actual numbers are declining even as the total population of America rapidly increases. Most churches that are growing are doing so only by attracting believers from other churches. Very few adult Americans are being converted, while evangelicalism is top-heavy with older people who will soon die off.

Dickerson not only diagnoses the problems, but he presents solutions. He advises that we approach homosexuals like we would any other class of sinners, not with hostility but with acts of love.

He calls for evangelical unity and for allowing differences on political issues, but cautions against unity with those who reject biblical inerrancy or other core doctrines. He cites Billy Graham as a model for unity. [This reviewer cannot endorse Graham's example of unity, which over a period of many decades involved cooperation with Roman Catholic and liberal Protestant churchmen, and sending converts to their churches].

To avoid bankruptcy as church offerings decline, he recommends that churches avoid taking on debt that cannot be paid off in 10 years or less, and that churches rely more on unpaid volunteer pastors. Churches will have to be willing to recognize, accept and train lay leadership, instead of relying on full-time paid ordained clergy to do everything.

To stop the exodus of members from our churches, Dickerson advocates discipling and a more loving, accepting approach to members rather than a distant business-like approach. He also emphasizes the need for more personal evangelism, to bring new converts into the churches.

This is an important and significant book. It is not necessary to agree with everything in it, to realize that it paints a pessimistic yet realistic picture of the future of evangelicalism (including fundamentalism) while proposing solid strategies for turning things around.

Gun Control Solution That Makes Sense

In 1863 a Democrat shot and killed Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States .

In 1881 a left wing radical Democrat shot James Garfield, President of the United States who later died from the wound.

In 1963 a radical left wing socialist shot and killed John F. Kennedy, President of the United States.

In 1975 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at Gerald Ford, President of the United States.

In 1983 a registered Democrat shot and wounded Ronald Reagan, President of the United States.

In 1984 James Hubert, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 22 people in a McDonalds restaurant.

In 1986 Patrick Sherrill, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 15 people in an Oklahoma post office.

In 1990 James Pough, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 10 people at a GMAC office.

In 1991 George Hennard, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 23 people in a Luby's cafeteria.

In 1995 James Daniel Simpson, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 5 coworkers in a Texas laboratory.

In 1999 Larry Asbrook, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 8 people at a church service.

In 2001 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at the White House in a failed attempt to kill George W. Bush, President of the US.

In 2003 Douglas Williams, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people at a Lockheed Martin plant.

In 2007 a registered Democrat named Seung - Hui Cho, shot and killed 32 people in Virginia Tech.

In 2010 a mentally ill registered Democrat named Jared Lee Loughner, shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killed 6 others.

In 2011 a registered Democrat named James Holmes, went into a movie theater and shot and killed 12 people.

In 2012 Andrew Engeldinger, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people in Minneapolis.

In 2013 a registered Democrat named Adam Lanza, shot and killed 26 people in a school.

As recently as Sept 2013, an angry Democrat shot 12 at a Navy ship yard.

One could go on, but you get the point, even if the media does not. Clearly, there is a problem with Democrats and guns.

No NRA member, Tea Party member, or Republican conservatives were involved.

SOLUTION: It should be illegal for Democrats to own guns.

Best idea I've heard to date.


Relevant Christianity?

If we want Christians to stay relevant with young people, they say, we've got to rewrite the way we do church, including our songs. (P) Recently, the Presbyterian Church USA dropped the hugely popular hymn, ‘In Christ Alone,' from its hymnal after its authors, Keith Ketty and Sturart Townend, refused to omit a reference to Jesus satisfying the wrath of God. (P) In a powerful response over at First Things, Colson Center chairman Timothy George quotes Richard Niebuhr who, back in the 1930's, described this kind of revisionist Protestantism as a religion in which ‘A God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross.' (P) The response from the PCUSA that their problem was not with God's wrath but with the idea that Christ's death satisfied God's wrath, doesn't change the fundamental problem of what George calls ‘squishy' theology. Theology is supposed to be true not palatable. (P) To counter the exodus of young people from American Churches, author Rachel Held Evans says it's time to own up to our shortcomings and give millennials (not sure of meaning. JMH) what they really want Ñ not a change in style but a change in substance, The answer to attracting millennials, she writes, is NOT ‘hipper worship bands' or handing out ‘lattes,' but actually helping them find Jesus. Amen. I couldn't agree more. But when she writes that attracting millennials to Jesus involves ‘an end to the culture wars,' a truce between science and faith,' being less ‘exclusive' with less emphasis on sex, without ‘predetermined answers' to life's questions, now I want to ask Ñ are we still talking about the Jesus of Biblical Christianity? Niebuhr watched as the redefining ‘Jesus Project' gave us mainline Protestantism, which promotes the acceptance of homosexuality, a passion for the environment, prioritizing so called ‘social justice' over transformational truth are all embodied in denominations like the United Methodist Church, the Episcopal Church and the Presbyterian Church USA. But religious millennials aren't flocking to Mainline Protestant congregations. Evans is right that evangelical Christianity is responsible in many ways for the exodus of millennials. But ditching the Church's unpalatable ‘old-fashioned' beliefs to become more ‘relevant' to the young won't bring them back. John Stonestreet via MINNESOTA CHRISTIAN EXAMINER (Edited for brevity. JMH) (From "Hite's Home Mission Outreach. 816 E. Birch St., Palmyra, PA.17078)


At first I thought this was funny...then I realized the awful truth of it. Be sure to read all the way to the end!,,,

Tax his land... Tax his bed... Tax the table At which he's fed

Tax his tractor... Tax his mule... Teach him taxes Are the rule

Tax his cow... Tax his goat... Tax his pants... Tax his coat

Tax his ties... Tax his shirt... Tax his work... Tax his dirt

Tax his tobacco... Tax his drink... Tax him if he Tries to think

Tax his cigars... Tax his beers... If he cries, then Tax his tears

Tax his car... Tax his gas... Find other ways To tax his ...

Tax all he has... Then let him know... That you won't be done... Till he has no dough

When he screams and hollers... Then tax him more... Tax him till He's good and sore

Then tax his coffin... Tax his grave... Tax the sod in... Which he's laid

Put these words... upon his tomb... " Taxes drove me to my doom..."

When he's gone... Do not relax... Its time to apply... The inheritance tax

Accounts Receivable Tax, Building Permit Tax, CDL license Tax, Cigarette Tax, Corporate Income Tax, Dog License Tax, Excise Taxes, Federal Income Tax, Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA), Fishing License Tax, Food License Tax, Fuel Permit Tax, Gasoline Tax (42 cents per gallon), Gross Receipts Tax, Hunting License Tax, Inheritance Tax, Inventory Tax, IRS Interest Charges, IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax), Liquor Tax, Luxury Taxes, Marriage License Tax, Medicare Tax, Personal Property Tax, Property Tax, Real Estate Tax, Service Charge Tax, Social Security Tax, Road Usage Tax, Sales Tax, Recreational Vehicle Tax, School Tax, State Income Tax, State Unemployment Tax (SUTA), Telephone Federal Excise Tax, Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax, Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes, Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax, Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax, Telephone State and Local Tax, Telephone Usage Charge Tax, Utility Taxes, Vehicle License Registration Tax, Vehicle Sales Tax (Not just once but every time the vehicle is sold), Watercraft Registration Tax, Well Permit Tax, Workers Compensation Tax

STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY? Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, and our nation was the most prosperous in the world. We had absolutely no National debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids. What happened? Can you spell "politicians!"? And... I still have to "press 1" for English.


Communist Chinese Troops on U.S. Soil for "Exchange" Mission

Written by Alex Newman. November 14, 2013

Following a recent uproar surrounding the Obama administration's hosting of Russian airborne terror troops for joint drills with U.S. military forces in Colorado, outrage is growing about the latest scandal involving foreign forces on American soil. ...

Forwarded to me by a very pagan lawyer.

End of America

In 1887 Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh , had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years prior: "A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse over loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship." "The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to complacency; From complacency to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage." The Obituary follows: Born 1776, Died 2012 It doesn't hurt to read this several times. Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law in St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the last Presidential election:

* Number of States won by:

Obama: 19 Ð Romney: 29

* Square miles of land won by:

Obama: 580,000 Ñ Romney: 2,427,000

* Population of counties won by:

Obama: 127 million Ñ Romney: 143 million

* Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by:

Obama: 13.2 Ñ Romney: 2.1

Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory Romney won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country.

Obama territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in low income tenements and living off various forms of government welfare..." Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the "complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase..

If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegals - and they vote - then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years. If you are in favor of this, then by all means, delete this message. If you are not, then pass this along to help everyone realize just how much is at stake, knowing that apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom..

"The heart holds things the mind forgets"

"Wear a smile and have friends, Wear a scowl and have wrinkles"

Flu shot kills 19-year-old

but vaccine industry still has total immunity against lawsuits

by Ethan A. Huff, staff writer

(NaturalNews) The flu shot has claimed its first victim in the state of Utah, at least according to state health officials who insist that there is no official record of any individual ever previously dying as a result of the annual jab. 19-year-old Chandler Webb, a formerly healthy young man who worked out at the gym daily, reportedly suffered violent reactions and slipped into a coma just one day after getting his first flu vaccine ever, which prompted his death just a few weeks later.

Chandler was given the flu shot as part of a routine physical he received in preparation for an upcoming mission with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The Salt Lake Tribune (SLT) reports that the young man suffered his first adverse reactions on October 16, just one day after getting jabbed. His symptoms included violent shaking, headaches and vomiting, all of which were the worst he had ever experienced.

"He said he never shook so hard in his whole life," sobbed Lori Webb, Chandler's mother. "He had the worst headache, throw up."

Chandler's health continued to decline in the immediate days following the vaccine, prompting his parents to take him to the Intermountain Medical Center in Murray. A team of six neurologists ran a battery of tests on the young man, testing him for every known virus, bacterium and fungus, but came up with nothing.

After weeks of being in a coma, Chandler eventually died as a result of severe brain swelling, which just so happens to be a common adverse effect associated with vaccinations. Though the hospital and the state say they cannot talk about the details of the case, Chandler's parents have since ordered a brain biopsy to verify the cause of death, which they believe was the vaccine.

"We're angry because we believe it's the flu shot that [caused] it," said Lori. "I've never been so scared in all my life to see my son go through so much."

State health officials says flu shot may be ‘associated' with serious adverse events like death

In an interview with, Utah state epidemiologist Dr. Allyn Nakashima admitted that the flu can cause severe adverse events, but such events are rare. Stopping short of fessing up and definitively linking flu vaccines to causing the type of brain swelling that killed Chandler -- such swelling is commonly referred to in the medical literature as encephalitis -- Dr. Nakashima conceded to an association between the two.

"We certainly have seen associations of encephalitis or encephalitis-type illnesses following flu vaccine," stated Dr. Nakashima to reporters. "It's very rare, and we can't necessarily say there's a cause and effect here, [but] we can say there's an association."

Tom Hudachko, a Utah Department of Health spokesman, provided a similar spiel. He told SLT reporters that, while rare, "more severe side effects" can result from getting the flu shot, essentially affirming what Chandler's family observed in their loved one. Yet at the same time, the agency stopped short of all-out implicating the flu vaccine as the cause of Chandler's death.

Lori told reporters that she plans to seek justice for her son through the legal system, apparently unaware of the fact that back in 1986 the Supreme Court granted immunity -- oh the irony -- to drug companies against certain lawsuits arising from injuries or deaths associated with vaccines. This so-called law was affirmed back in 2011 by Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote for the majority that the parents of vaccine-injured children will have to continue dealing with the illegitimate "vaccine court."

( Natural News' mailing list is worth being on.

Mandatory Mercury Injections

New York City to force all children to be injected with mercury in the form of flu shots

(NaturalNews) Of all the toxic heavy metals, mercury is the most devastating to the brain. No legitimate scientist would ever argue that mercury is safe to inject into a child at any dose, and the CDC has never established any "safe" level of mercury in human blood for the simple reason that there's isn't any safe level.

Yet the New York City Board of Health has now decided that all children in New York City need to be injected with a devastating dose of toxic mercury as part of their twisted "public health" measure. Flu shots, of course, still contain the neurotoxin heavy metal known as mercury, yet virtually the entire medical establishment blatantly lies to the public and claims -- with a straight face -- that "all the mercury has been removed from vaccines."...

CDC admits: Nearly all flu shots still contain toxic mercury

The CDC even reluctantly admits that on its own thimerosal page where it states that the 2013-2014 flu shot "contains thimerosal to safeguard against possible contamination of the vial once it is opened." ...

Vaccines are so dangerous, the entire vaccine industry had to be granted blanket legal immunity just to stay in business

The desperate attempts of the CDC and vaccine manufacturers to hide this clear link between injected mercury (thimerosal) and autism is one of the saddest and most insidious medical conspiracies in human history. Those who deny that mercury is toxic to children are morally repugnant and scientifically inept. They are the "Flat Earthers" of medicine and they will do almost anything to make sure your child gets injected with a substance so dangerous than the entire industry had to be granted legal immunity by Congress because its products would otherwise result in so much legal liability that the industry would go bankrupt. ...

New York City to become the capitol of autism in America

For the city of New York to now state that all parents much subject their children to these risks of harm and death -- without telling those parents the truth about such risks -- is a wildly dangerous misappropriation of government power. It is, in essence, "gunpoint medicine" where the state criminalizes non-compliance with a twisted quack science public health mandate that will inevitably increase the rate of autism, paralysis, hospitalization and even death of New York City children.

Beware of any product so dangerous than the government says "you can't sue the manufacturer even if it kills you" but then that same government turns around and says, "Oh, by the way, you MUST inject your child with this substance, too."

1 Samuel 4

In this chapter, Samuel is now recognized in all Israel as a prophet from God. His age is not mentioned, but he is probably quite young. In Old testament times, a man did not enter into his life's work until the age of 30, but Samuel was probably not that old. God is now going to fulfill His twice delivered words of judgment against Eli and his household Ñ Eli's sin was that he honoured his children over the Lord by not doing what he could to restrain them, 2:34 & 3:11-14. At least one son had a family, for his wife later dies in childbirth.

Vv. 1-3. Israel went to battle at Samuel's word, but Israel was smitten anyway Ð 4,000 were killed.

Note that though the Lord sent Israel into battle against HIS enemies, Israel was soundly defeated, and many lives lost. The question immediately arose, "Where is the Lord? If he is in this, then why were we defeated?"

There are times when the Lord sends his people to their own destruction. He does it so that the results of their sins may catch up with them. And here the whole nation will start paying the price for Eli's sin of not doing what he could to restrain his grown sons.

Question: How much responsibility did the nation of Israel have for Eli's actions concerning his sons? How much of society's destruction today is because God's people refuse to instruct their children properly in the ways of the Lord? How long before the Lord sends America, a supposed Christian nation, into a battle designed for its destruction? Was the War of Northern Aggression that war?

At the very least, as previously mentioned, parents must do what they can to restrain their children.

The book of Judges closes with In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes. (Jud 21:25.) 1 Samuel 4:3 shows us that Israel's supposedly Godly religion had degenerated to plain old idolatry.

It was known throughout Israel that the word of the Lord came through Samuel, but they did not check with him, v. 1. Rather, they acted according to their feelings about the matter, and took the Ark to battle, assuming the Ark would save them.

We are shown why God allowed the entire nation to pay the price for Eli's sin Ñ the nation had reverted to idolatry as it looked to the Ark of God to save them rather than to the God of the ark to save them. Though the idolatry was under the guise of worshiping God, it was still idolatry.

A probable reason the Ark is missing today is because people would worship it as the source of power instead of the Lord God.

Vv. 3-11

Vv. 1-3 presupposes that the people were confident enough they had the Lord on their side that they boldly went to war against a far superior force. And when they were defeated, they still had confidence the Lord was with them. The people knew why they were smitten before their enemy Ð that is, the Lord was not with them. But notice the question: Wherefore hath the LORD smitten us this day?

Though they asked the question in v. 3, they made no effort to find the answer. The question was an empty question, for they wanted no answer. It was simply a statement, for they did not enquire of the Lord through a man of God: Samuel or a priest. Rather, they tried a new thing, the ark Ð it may save us out of the hand of our enemies.

How many people have we met that when things go against them, rather than stopping long enough to see if there is sin in their lives, they simply try a new religious procedure? They switch churches or even switch religions until they find one that suits their fancy.

People will ask, Why Lord? But the question is an empty question, for they make no effort to find an honest answer from the Lord. They simply ask the question to be asking it. They do not really want an answer.

How many times have pastors been asked, "Why Lord?", but when they try to answer, it is obvious that the questioners do not want an answer. They only want to ask the question, and then they want some religious experience to go through to ease their minds.

V. 3, there was no feeling of remorse nor spirit of repentance. In fact, neither remorse nor repentance entered into their minds, even after the death of so many people.

Their answer was to take the ark of the covenant of the Lord with them to battle, believing the presence of the Lord was bound up in the ark. In other words, an outward show of more religion will solve one's problem, rather than a change of heart toward the Lord and toward sin.

"He will fulfil the desire of them that fear him: he also will hear their cry, and will save them." (Ps. 145:19, 69:35.) "For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us." (Isa. 33:22, &c.)

Note that the people identified the ark as the ark of the covenant of the Lord of hosts. But they recognized the Lord in title only, for they had clearly departed from the covenant law of the Lord, or they would not have been smitten before their enemies.

It may save us... The Roman religion is built around convincing people that "holy" relics will save them, and the Church controls the relics. But Rome is not the only one with the problem. Even good sincere, Bible believing people are caught in the same trap, e.g., our religious activity will save us (church attendance, giving, &c.), our jobs will save us, our education will save us, our retirement plan will save us, our government will save us, &c.

Hope in human activity replaces the power of God, Who acts according to His word.

V. 4, "So the people sent to Shiloh, that they might bring from thence the ark of the covenant of the LORD of hosts, which dwelleth between the cherubims: and the two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, were there with the ark of the covenant of God."

Observe: The ark was recognized as the place where the Lord dwelt between the cherubims. Yet the two wicked sons of Eli were the guardians of the ark of the covenant of the Lord of hosts. The people knew what kind of men Hophni and Phinehas were, yet they permitted them to guard the ark.

In other words, the people saw no problem with these wicked men being in this very close service of the Lord. They were no better than Eli, who made no effort to separate the wicked men from the close service of the Lord.

Many today see no problem with wicked people "serving the Lord," as long as the ‘motives' are good. Sodomites and pedophiles are permitted to be "pastors" and "priests of Rome." Adulterers, Whoremongers and thieves are allowed to remain in places of church leadership. Far too many times there is no connection between men's evil deeds and the Lord's service. What kind of wrath is stored up for ungodly associations?

No wonder the people made no connection between their sins and their defeat when Eli refused to remove the evil sons from their place of authority.

Is it any wonder today why people cannot make the "cause and effect" connection when "religious" leaders refuse to make that connection. Wicked men are guarding the sacred things of the Lord. God will not permit any kind of victory over the enemy when such things are done.

V. 5, shows us the strong confidence of Israel, but Israel's confidence was in the wrong thing. No matter how sincere or confident people may be, there is "death in the pot" unless the confidence is in the right thing. Sincerity never saved anyone. People must act according to God's revealed truth, or they will perish.

Vv. 6, 7, heard the noise,.. said, God is come into the camp. The pagans had more confidence in the Lord than did God's people. They knew the power was in the Lord, but Israel depended upon a representation of the Lord. However, the pagans can be excused for viewing Israel's God as being represented by the Ark, for that is what Israel did. Moreover, the pagans saw their gods as represented in their idols.


Some time ago, there was a story of a tavern in Florida. The people tried everything they could think of to get rid of the tavern, with no success. Then they decided to pray that God would remove it. Lightening struck the tavern, and it burned to the ground. Insurance refused to cover the tavern, looking upon the lightening as an "act of God." So the owner sued the church, claiming the cause of the destruction of his business was the prayers of the people. The people then went to court, and said their prayers had nothing to do with the lightening. The tavern believed in the power of God more than did the people. (Obviously, the money involved influenced the belief on each side.)

V. 8, they got their story mixed up (the story at this point is over 300 years old), but they had more faith in the power of God than did Israel.

V. 9, servants unto the Hebrews. The world would rather do anything, even die, than be subject to godly rule. However, there were exceptions, i.e., the inhabitants of Gibeon, Joshua chapter 9. What Gibeon did when he submitted to Israel was wholly by the sovereign grace of God. Many professed Christians have the same fear of subjection to godly rule.

Admittedly, the Hebrews' rule at the time of Samuel was probably not very godly.

Vv. 10, 11.

1) Israel was smitten rather than the Philistines. Israel's cause was just, but the sin in the camp caused God's hand to be against his people, giving the enemy the victory. Thus a good cause does not guarantee success, nor does confidence in one's abilities and strength.

Israel shouted while the Philistines trembled, but the shout was empty, for the Lord was against them.

2) The ark was with them, but its presence was a false assurance. The Lord was not present because of sin. Religious forms and rituals will save no one in the time of need. Only obedience to the Lord will deliver from the enemy.

3) The ark of God went with Israel to battle, but they trusted in a form of Christianity while denying the power thereof, obedience to Christ and His entire word.

Trust it, the ark, rather than the Lord, and die. (Pro 16:25.) It seems right to trust the things of v. 3. Israel, and Eli's sons, trusted in the external marks of being God's people, and they perished. The Lord has not bound Himself to external signs and symbols, but to His law-word.

4) As priests, the boys were in charge of the ark of God. They saw the ark of God as a means of livelihood Ð a means of support for themselves, in a manner they enjoyed. So they defend it with their lives. Such a "fallen" trust is common today as "Christian" workers are in the ministry for the benefit for themselves Ð it provides a good living for those who will compromise God's total word.

5) God's word to Eli begins its fulfillment as his two evil sons are killed. The boys are the ones who took the Ark into battle. Accordingly, being close to the Lord in a physical sense, physically involved in the Lord's work, will not spare one in the time of judgment.

6) The battle was in the open where the Philistines could use their chariots. Israel was forbidden to have chariots. Because footmen were powerless against chariots without God, this insured Israel would only go to battle and win if they were right with the Lord. (13:5, 2 Sam 1:6 Ps. 78:60, Josh 11:6, 17:16-18.)

Not only did they lose the battle, but they lost the ark of God. Idolatry renders God's people powerless in the face of the enemy. But even if God's people could have used chariots, they still would have lost the battle, for their enemy was not the Philistines, but God.

7) Not only did the death of 30,000 show that God was against them, but the loss of the Ark proved that God had forsaken them.

We should note here that believing in a merely historical Christ will result in death and destruction, no matter how much one may preach, teach, hear, read, talk, discuss and dispute about Him. Without Biblical trust, including turning from sin and obedience to His word, there is no hope. His power to work comes from the inside of His faithful people, not from the outside of an individual.

Vv. 12-18

Bad news travels fast. A runner came from the battle, which was about 42 miles away (Gill), bearing the sad news of Israel's defeat, and of the many dead.

1) Eli's heart trembled for the ark of God rather than for his sons. He obviously knew of his sons' wickedness, and expected God's movement against them. However, in the prophecies, nothing had been said of the ark of God.

2) Despite his serious fault concerning his children, he loved the Lord, and was genuinely concerned about the ark of God.

However, his concern for the ark of God did not cancel out his hatred for God when it came to his children. Love for the Lord in one area will not influence the Lord to overlook evil in another. We cannot "store" up righteousness in one area, so we can sin in another.

3) The runner brought the news of the defeat to the city, and the people raised a cry of anguish.

Notice the difference between this situation and the situation with Joshua. In Joshua 7, Joshua cried out to the Lord, seeking to know why the Lord delivered them to the enemies. That is not what was done here. Joshua cried out over the loss of power with the Lord while the people here cried out over the loss of power over their enemies, and over the loss of the Ark, a symbol of their God.

4) Eli enquired about the noise in the city. The runner hurried to Eli, and gave him the sad news of the slaughter of thirty thousand footmen, the death of the sons and the loss of the ark of God. It was the news of the loss of the ark of God that caused Eli to faint, not the news of his sons.

5) The word of God is clear, particularly in the New Testament Ñ Church leadership is based upon godly leadership in the home.

And he died being 98 years old, and having judged Israel 40 years.

I wonder how Eli became a judge in Israel. We really have no record of God speaking through him. We do know, however, from his attitude with Samuel that he was a godly man, except in the matter of his sons. The sons were grown men who acted like pagans, and he did nothing to hinder them.

Eli stands as a warning to all heads of Christian families (and congregations) that overindulgence by the head leads to the destruction of the family and of society.

Matthew Henry points out that the ark of God never returned to Shiloh, and the city dwindled away to nothing:

"All the city cried out (1Sa 4:13), and well they might, for, besides that this was a calamity to all Israel, it was a particular loss to Shiloh, and the ruin of that place; for, though the ark was soon rescued out of the hands of the Philistines, yet it never returned to Shiloh again; their candlestick was removed out of its place, because they had left their first love, and their city dwindled, and sank, and came to nothing. Now God forsook the tabernacle of Shiloh, they having driven Him from them; and the tribe of Ephraim, which had for 340 years been blessed with the presence of the ark in it, lost the honour (Ps 78:60,67), and, some time after, it was transferred to the tribe of Judah, the Mount Sion which he loved, as it follows there (#Ps 78:68), because the men of Shiloh knew not the day of their visitation. This abandoning of Shiloh Jerusalem is long afterwards reminded of, and told to take warning by. #Jer 7:12,

"‘Go see what I did to Shiloh. From this day, this fatal day, let the desolations of Shiloh be dated.'

"They had therefore reason enough to cry out when they heard that the ark was taken."

Vv. 19-22

A daughter in law, Phinehas' wife, heard the distressing news, and went into hard labor. The child, a son, was delivered, but she died in the process.

1) Her concern was for the ark of God and the glory it represented more than it was for her husband. She, evidently, was a godly woman married to an ungodly man.

And thus the Lord appears to abandon His covenant people, but appearances are deceiving.


This chapter opens with a statement showing that God's people knew the Lord now spoke through Samuel. However, when the "chips were down" and they were pressed to the wall by the enemy, they did not turn to Samuel. (Maybe his young age discouraged them, but they knew.)

Rather than seek God's answer through Samuel for their distress, they willfully moved ahead, taking the ark of God into battle. They evidently recalled Joshua taking the ark of God into the battle of Jericho, and thought they had the same authority to do so. However, Joshua had the command of God to take it, but these people had no such command.

The appearance of God replaced the presence of God, formality replaced obedience, and it cost them 34,000 men.

Eli knew of his grown sons' evil actions, and evidently expected God to kill them. Such hardness on the part of a parent is not good. Notice there is no mention of God's judgment against their mother.

Everything fell apart in this battle with the enemy, but the people still did not learn their lesson to trust only in the Lord of Hosts.

Only the sovereign grace of God can open the eyes of His people, and He had not chosen to do so at this time.

The ark of God was the ark of the covenant of the Lord. (Num. 10:33, 14:44, Deut. 10:8, &c.) But there is no power nor protection in the covenant if the covenant of the Lord is broken. However, the broken covenant does not void the covenant; rather, it brings about the curses of the covenant, which Israel experienced in this conflict with the Philistines. (Deut. 29:21, 1 Chron. 16:17.)

Fat : )

These Doctors insist a high-fat diet is Good for your heart

Cutting back on butter, cream, and fatty meats may have done more harm to heart health than good.

Experts say the belief that high-fat diets are bad for arteries is based on faulty interpretation of scientific studies and has led to millions being "over-medicated" with statin drugs.

Doctors insist it is time to bust the myth of the role of saturated fat in heart disease.

Some Western nations, such as Sweden, are now adopting dietary guidelines that encourage foods high in fat but low in carbs.

Cardiologist Aseem Malhotra says almost four decades of advice to cut back on saturated fats found in cream, butter, and less lean meat has "paradoxically increased our cardiovascular risks."

He leads a debate online in the British Medical Journal website that challenges the demonization of saturated fat.

A landmark study in the 1970s concluded there was a link between heart disease and blood cholesterol, which correlated with the calories provided by saturated fat.

"But correlation is not causation," said Dr. Malhotra, interventional cardiology specialist registrar at Croydon University Hospital, London.

Nevertheless, people were advised to reduce fat intake to 30 percent of total energy and a fall in saturated fat intake to 10 percent.

Recent studies fail to show a link between saturated fat intake and risk of cardiovascular disease, with saturated fat actually found to be protective, he said.

One of the earliest obesity experiments, published in The Lancet in 1956, comparing groups on diets of 90 percent fat versus 90 percent protein versus 90 percent carbohydrate revealed the greatest weight loss was among those eating the most fat.

Professor David Haslam, of the National Obesity Forum, said: "The assumption has been made that increased tat in the bloodstream is caused by increased saturated fat in the diet...modern scientific evidence is proving that refined carbohydrates, and sugar in particular, are actually the culprits."

Another U.S. study showed a "low-fat" diet was worse for health than one which was low in carbohydrates, such as potatoes, pasta, bread.

Dr. Malhotra said obesity has "rocketed" in the US despite a big drop in calories consumed from fat.

"One reason," he said, "when you take the fat out, the food tastes worse."

The food industry compensated by replacing saturated fat with added sugar but evidence is mounting that sugar is a "possible independent risk factor" for metabolic syndrome which can lead to diabetes.

Dr. Malhotra said the government's obsession with cholesterol "has led to the over-medication of millions of people with statins."

But why has there been no demonstrable effect on heart disease trends when eight million Britons are being prescribed cholesterol-lowering drugs, he asked.

Adopting a Mediterranean diet after a heart attack is almost three times as powerful in reducing death rates as taking a statin, which have been linked to unacceptable side effects in real-world use, he added.

Dr. Malhrotra said "The greatest improvements in morbidity and mortality have been due not to personal responsibility but rather to public health.

"It is time to bust the myth of the role of saturated fat in heart disease and wind back the harms of dietary advice that has contributed to obesity."

Dr. Malcolm Kendrick, a GP and author of The Great Cholesterol Con, said Sweden had become the first Western nation to develop national dietary guidelines that rejected the low-fat myth, in favor of low-carb, high-fat nutrition advice.

He said "Around the world, the tide is turning, and science is overturning anti-fat dogma.

"Recently, the Swedish Council on Health Technology assessment has admitted that a high-fat diet improves blood sugar levels, reduces triglycerides, improves ‘good' cholesterolÑall signs of insulin resistance, the underlying cause of diabetesÑand has nothing but beneficial effects, including assisting in weight loss.

"Aseem Malhotra is to be congratulated for stating the truth that has been suppressed for the last 40 years," he added.

Professor Robert Lustig, Paediatric Endocrinologist, University of San Francisco, said, "Food should confer wellness, not illness. And real food does just that, including saturated fat.

"But when saturated fat got mixed up with the high sugar added to processed food in the second half of the 20th century, it got a bad name. Which is worse, the saturated fat or the added sugar?

"The American Heart Association has weighed inÑthe sugar many times over. Instead of lowering serum cholesterol with statins, which is dubious at best, how about serving up some real food?"

Timothy Noakes, Professor of Exercise and Sports Science, University of Cape Town, South Africa, said, "Focusing on an elevated blood cholesterol concentration as the exclusive cause of coronary heart disease is unquestionably the worst medical error of our time.

"After reviewing all the scientific evidence, I draw just one conclusionÑnever prescribe a statin drug for a loved one." ¥

The information provided in this article is for educational purposes and is not meant as medical advice.

Jenny Hope is the Medical Correspondent for The Daily Mail. Jenny has won numerous journalism awards including the Cancer Research UK annual award, BMA's medical journalist of the year, winner in the Medical Journalists' Association awards and the Royal College of Nursing journalist of the year.

From "Samaritan Christian HealthCare Newsletter", Dec. 2013.

South African Communist Party Admits Mandela's Leadership Role

Written by Alex Newman, 12/8/13

Shortly after the death of South African revolutionary Nelson Mandela, the South African Communist Party and the African National Congress both released official statements acknowledging what was already well-known among experts: "Comrade" Mandela was indeed a Communist Party leader who served on the Soviet-backed organization's Central Committee. According to the Communist Party statement on Mandela's passing, not only was the confessed terror leader a senior official on the South African Communist Party's highest decision-making body, he was actually close to the outfit until his death.

Until last week, apologists for Mandela still claimed implausibly that his "alleged" alliance with international communism was mostly a marriage of convenience. Some of his more ardent or ignorant fans, relying on decades of lying denials from Mandela and others in the know about his membership in the party, even tried to claim that charges of communism were fabrications by Apartheid supporters, "conspiracy theorists," and "extremists." For now, the press outside of South Africa does not seem to have even noticed the earth-shattering news.

The controversial revolutionary figure, who admittedly oversaw a ruthless but largely forgotten campaign of terror against civilians that left women and children of all races dead, simply could not have really been a real, card-carrying communist -- or so his adoring fans wanted to believe, at least. The latest evidence, however, confirms otherwise, once again. Now, the truth is officially out, but whether it will be reported by the establishment press remains to be seen.

Much of the world -- especially government leaders, dictators, the press, and South Africans -- has been too busy mourning his passing to take notice of the explosive revelations. However, the now-irrefutable fact that Mandela played a key role in the ruthless international communist movement should not be forgotten amid the praise. It has now been officially admitted, and despite the lack of attention, remains crucial to understanding Mandela and his real legacy.

Conservative estimates suggest that in the last century alone, communist regimes -- virtually all of which backed Mandela with troops, funding, and more -- have been responsible for at least 100 million murders. The numbers are probably much higher. Mandela's own admitted terror campaign, including the infamous 1983 Church Street bombing, which killed 19 and wounded over 200, claimed many lives, too. He pled guilty to over 150 acts of public violence.

In the statement released on December 6 and published by assorted Marxist outfits, the South African Communist Party, or SACP, helped shed light on all of it. "At his arrest in August 1962, Nelson Mandela was not only a member of the then underground South African Communist Party, but was also a member of our Party's Central Committee," the SACP said in the statement, illustrating once again the enormity of the long and successful track-record of communist deception.

As to why it was denied for so long, SACP deputy general secretary Solly Mapaila was quoted in South African news reports as saying it was for "political reasons" -- apparently people would have been upset to realize their hero and supposed "liberator" was, actually, a card-carrying communist. "There was a huge offensive by the oppressive apartheid regime at the time against communists," Mapaila said, adding that all of the terrorists tried at Mandela's Rivonia Trial were Party members.

When Mandela was released from prison, Mapaila added, the mass-murdering regime ruling over what was then the Soviet Union was supposedly "crumbling," and there was "too much negativity around the Soviet system" to tell South Africans the truth. He added: "But we should not focus on that now, let us focus on resting the old man."

Unsurprisingly, the statement went on to praise Mandela and his African National Congress (ANC), where the South African revolutionary would go on to found the outfit's armed wing. "To us as South African communists, Comrade Mandela shall forever symbolise the monumental contribution of the SACP in our liberation struggle," the SACP said. "The contribution of communists in the struggle to achieve the South African freedom has very few parallels in the history of our country."

Also admitted in the SACP statement are facts that his adoring fans-- the United Nations even designated a "Nelson Mandela International Day," while Obama compared him to George Washington and ordered flags flown at half-mast -- will have even more trouble explaining away. "After his release from prison in 1990, Comrade Madiba became a great and close friend of the communists till his last days," the South African Communist Party said.

Today, the common perception of the South African revolutionary, who regularly sang "struggle" songs advocating the mass-murder of whites, holds that he was a "political prisoner." Left unmentioned in the SACP statement and the adoring obituaries, of course, was the fact that Mandela was repeatedly offered the opportunity to walk out of jail if he would just renounce violence, which he consistently refused to do. For the SACP and the international communist movement, he represented nothing less than a hero for his positions and activities.

"The passing away of Comrade Mandela marks an end to the life of one of the greatest revolutionaries of the 20th century, who fought for freedom and against all forms of oppression in both their countries and globally," the SACP continued, perhaps hoping to rally support for communism by making the announcement now, amid worldwide praise for one of their former leaders. "In Comrade Mandela we had a brave and courageous soldier, patriot and internationalist who, to borrow from Che Guevara, was a true revolutionary guided by great feelings of love for his people, an outstanding feature of all genuine people's revolutionaries."

The communists then went on to praise Mandela's corruption-plagued ANC -- which governs South Africa in an alliance with the SACP and a coalition of labor unions -- as well as the controversial but intimate link between the two supposedly distinct forces. "The one major lesson we need to learn from Mandela and his generation of leaders was their commitment to principled unity within each of our Alliance formations as well as the unity of our Alliance as a whole and that of the entire mass democratic movement," the statement said.

"Their generation struggled to build and cement the unity of our Alliance, and we therefore owe it to the memory of Comrade Madiba to preserve the unity of our Alliance," the SACP continued about the Communist Party union with the ANC, referring to Mandela by his tribal name. "Let those who do not understand the extent to which blood was spilt in pursuance of Alliance unity be reminded not to throw mud at the legacy and memory of the likes of Madiba by being reckless and gambling with the unity of our Alliance."

However, despite all of the praise, the SACP acknowledged that the effort to enslave South Africa under communist tyranny was not yet complete. Suggesting that Mandela supported their plans, the SACP said that "some would like us to believe" that the revolutionary's push for "national reconciliation" meant leaving some freedoms in place " or "class and other social inequalities in our society," as the communists put it. That is not the case, however, the party claimed.

"For Madiba, national reconciliation was a platform to pursue the objective of building a more egalitarian South African society free of the scourge of racism, patriarchy and gross inequalities," it said, ignoring the spectacular horrors afflicting Communist Party-ruled North Korea, for example, or Cuba, where fervent Mandela ally Fidel Castro has shown what a society ruled by their "ideology" really looks like. "And true national reconciliation shall never be achieved in a society still characterized by the yawning gap of inequalities and capitalist exploitation."

Ironically, perhaps, since communist forces seized power in South Africa two decades ago, it has become one of the most unequal societies in the world in terms of wealth distribution. In a nut shell, as in every country dominated by communist political forces, leaders and their cronies end up with what remains of the perpetually diminishing supply of wealth, while everyday people end up living in squalor -- oftentimes starving to death.

"In honour of this gallant fighter, the SACP will intensify the struggle against all forms of inequality, including intensifying the struggle for socialism, as the only political and economic solution to the problems facing humanity," the statement noted. The passing of Mandela, the outfit claimed, represents a "second chance" for everyone who has not "fully embraced a democratic South Africa" and "majority rule" -- in other words, everyone who has not embraced totalitarianism under the guise of mob rule, instead of the rule of law, as in republics such as the one established in the United States under the Constitution.

The ANC, meanwhile, also confirmed Mandela's Communist Party membership while praising the former leader of its armed wing, Umkhonto we Sizwe (Spear of the Nation). "Madiba was also a member of the South African Communist Party, where he served in the Central Committee," the ANC statement admitted. "His was a choice to not only be a product but the maker of his and his people's history."

"In his lifetime of struggle through the African National Congress, he assumed and was assigned various leadership positions," the ANC added. "He served with distinction. He was part of the ANC leadership collective and did not make decisions without first reflecting with his comrades. Yet he would fight for the principle of what was the right thing to do."

Of course, increasingly iron-clad evidence of Mandela's prominent role in the international communist conspiracy had been trickling out for decades. Early on, for example, there was a hand-written document by Mandela, dubbed "How To Be A Good Communist," that was cited during his successful prosecution for sabotage, subversion, and terror. "We communist party members are the most advanced revolutionaries in modern history," Mandela proclaimed in the essay. "The people of South Africa, led by the South African Communist Party, will destroy capitalist society and build in its place socialism."

More recently, as The New American reported late last year, evidence uncovered by British historian Stephen Ellis also exposed Mandela's denials of Communist Party membership as a fraud, all the while trying to downplay the significance. The new research, based on Party minutes and more, confirmed not only that the ANC leader was a member of the SACP, but also that he was actually a senior official working with the party's Central Committee.

As The New American has documented extensively over a period of decades, despite Mandela's communism and terrorism, Western governments and power brokers, along with the world's ruthless communist despots, played a key role in bringing him to power. Now, however, even with the undeniable truth exposed, even as South Africa descends into chaos, genocide, and grinding poverty, it is unlikely that apologies will be forthcoming.

An excellent analysis of Mandela's Communist Party membership, written by anti-Apartheid activist and Afrikaner journalist Rian Malan, explains the enormous significance well. South Africans and the world have been duped. The "man of peace" who is so widely revered around the world was not the real Mandela. If humanity knew that it was idolizing a man now conclusively exposed as a Soviet-backed Communist Party leader and an admitted terrorist, however, the reaction to his death may have been different. For more on the real Mandela, see William F. Jasper's recent article, "Saint" Mandela -- Not so Fast!

The end does not, and will never, justify the means, no matter what communists and Mandela apologists may claim. Amid the global outpouring of praise, victims of Mandela's bombing campaigns have faded from memory. So, while the world mourns the loss of Mandela, perhaps remembering his victims-- who were primarily fellow blacks suspected of being opposed to the communist takeover of South Africa -- would be a more worthwhile endeavor; along with the many tens of millions of victims of communism all over the world. They have been almost erased from history, but everyone who loves the truth has a responsibility to ensure that they are not forgotten, and that history does not repeat itself.


"Vladimir Putin claims Russia is moral compass of the world"

Russia has asserted that it takes a morally superior world-view to the West and is seeking to resist the tide of "non-traditional values"

Mr Putin ... Speaking as a worldwide protest movement grows against the Kremlin's anti-gay stance, Mr Putin upbraided the West for treating "good and evil" equally. ...

Various updates

GMOs cause horrible deformities, birth defects in piglets

Cooking with Splenda found to release cancer-causing dioxins in food

Get out of Obamacare, Tell them the Needs sent you.

All articles by Bro. Need unless otherwise noted. Use with credit