Welcome to Biblestudy.net!

How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed ? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard ? and how shall they hear without a preacher ? – Romans 10:14

---

For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. – Romans 1:16

---

 

“With What Body Do They Come?” - Comments (1)

Category: Articles,Doctrine
Author: John Malone
Date: 9th January, 2014 @ 04:36:56 AM

The question quoted in {1st Corinthians 15:35|1cor 15:35-38} is from a hypothetical foolish questioner. It is implied the questioner is a skeptic, nevertheless, the apostle Paul, answers him according to his folly.

Our foolish skeptic asks, concerning the resurrection of the dead – apparently mocking – “How are the dead raised, and with what body do they come?”

The answer is deep, extensive, and mysterious.

We can assume that the skeptic comes from the school of the Sadducees, who believed in {neither angels or the resurrection of the dead|Acts 23:8}. There is also no doubt that this school of thought extended to Gentile thinking, as Israel, evil or good, has ever functioned as God’s first born in the world for better or worse. At the forefront of every movement toward or away from God, there will be Jews at the forefront.

1. Paul begins his answer by pointing out what we know of death from the natural world, in the illustration of seeds. He points out the germ of life planted into the ground first dies, and then is embodied by God into a more useful and “glorious” body that he gives it.

A seed does not look like the fruitful plant that follows, and yet it happens persistently, and dependably. Who could argue that one should not plant a seed, because it’s “resurrection” makes no sense? Indeed, the simplest agrarian understands this, and the skeptic depends upon its truth to live. There’s some resurrection right there. Not only does the {seed die when it’s planted|Jo 12:24}, (“seed” truth as taught by the Lord) but a body is given to it that is fitting for its fruit-bearing, as it pleases God.

2. But Paul goes a {on further.|1Cor 15:39-42} to teach things concerning earthly and heavenly bodies. First, he tell us there are four kinds of flesh: man, beats, fish, and birds. Surely this categorization can help us better understand the natural world, but that is not the main point. The main point is that God has invented diverse flesh to embody diverse creatures. This, therefore, allows for yet another sort of flesh for the resurrection body.

Those familiar with Biblical numbers might seize on the fact of four as fitting the natural world as we experience it. The same familiarity would lead to the addition of one other, making five, as evidence of His grace.

There is another kind of flesh {not referenced in this passage, but in Jude|Jude 1:7} that is there translated “strange flesh,” more accurately meaning “flesh of different kind (heteros).” In this passage, the Sodomites who came after the angels visiting Lot, are said to be “departing” after “strange flesh.” They didn’t want Lot. They didn’t want his sons-in-law. They want to “know” the angels. Some would object to this notion, rightly pointing out the truth, {that angels are spirits.|Heb 1:14}

However, the fact that they are spirits does not negate that, when they visit man to minister, as is their function, they are provided with man (not woman) looking bodies that are provided for them. These bodies are called oikoterion. This word is used in {Jude 6, translated “habitation,”|Jude 1:6} as it is in {2 Corinthians 5:2 by Paul to describe his resurrection body,|2Cor 5:2} which is (poorly) translated “house,” even though it is at the root of the word.

This wonderful truth is thereby obscured to us, but it is plain enough to see if we scrutinize it. In short, the “angels that sinned” not only wandered out of their principality in the heavenlies, but set aside the heavenly bodies allocated to them (their oiketerion) for visiting the terrestrial scene. Instead they sought to (and did!) corrupt the genetic code of mankind by mysteriously “knowing” the daughters of Adam 120 years before Adam’s death, and 846 years before the great deluge. Noah, being justified (by faith) AND having been preserved in his genetic code, was therefore qualified to “re-father” the human race, and did so after the deluge.

Therefore, as we read in verse 40, there are both terrestrial (earthly) and celestial (heavenly) bodies. Since the Scriptures were written, stars and planets have been called “heavenly bodies” in the English language. Interestingly, this figure of speech probably arose from a wrong reading of this passage, or, more sinisterly, a twisting of it to obscure the blatant truth that Paul declares unequivocally: there are material, spiritual, heavenly human bodies. And the first human one is Christ Jesus.

The physicality of the resurrection body is one of the first things the Lord addressed with his disciples. I used to walk about in public parks and other thoroughfares when I was in my late 20’s and early 30’s, to attempt to talk to strangers about the Lord Jesus Christ. In fact, sometimes I think people prefer talking about some things to total strangers, people they think they will never see again. I would get around to asking them if they believed Jesus Christ was alive today, having been raised from the dead.

Religious people, especially Roman Catholics, would almost always agree He is alive, having been raised. Then I would ask, “In a body, that you could touch and feel?” Almost invariably, they would say no, that He was raised spiritually, whatever that meant, but they would deny his physical presence. (No wonder, with the ridiculous hokem they and others, such as Lutherans, are taught about a wafer becoming human.)

At that point I will take them to {Luke 24:39 where the Lord tells|Lu 24:39} them clearly that he is material, able to be handled, and not a mere spirit. In Greek thinking, “spiritual” is opposite of “material.” In the Scriptures, “spiritual” is either the opposite of “natural” or “carnal” – sin impacted. Therefore, there is no conflict when talking about material spiritual bodies, which do exist, and which will exist more by an order of magnitude sometime in the relatively near future, after the resurrection of the dead.

Lastly to this point, Paul gives an analogy. The glory of the heaven is greater than the glory of the earth. Furthermore, just as the light emitting from the sun, moon and stars vary in intensity (glory) – indeed even stars differ from one another in that very way – there will be varying glories of resurrection bodies in resurrection.

3. Finally, the apostle {writes his coup de grace concerning this grand subject|1Cor 15:42-49}, the resurrection of the body. As the seed is planted in it’s form, and a body pleasing to God given to it, so is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption: a seed is buried in the ground and corrupts, as does the body once dead. And just as that seed is embodied by a plant in newness of life, so shall resurrection be. Sown in dishonor. The frailty and decomposition of our elemental bodies if sad and fast. Yet, raised in glory!

Sown a natural body, raised a spiritual body. You see, there are two kinds. Natural, corresponding to the earthly, in contrast to a spiritual body, corresponding to the heavenly. There IS a spiritual body.

There two bodies correspond to their progenitors: the natural, to Adam, who was composed from the earth and made alive, and the spiritual to the LAST (not second, as some say) Adam, Who gives life. One the object of life, the other the Giver. The natural man came first, then the spiritual. The order is important, and prophetic. The natural comes first, then the spiritual. This macro fact of Adam and Jesus Christ is presented to us to understand that so shall it be in the life of every believer. It is the natural that is sown or planted, and the spiritual that is reaped. This is the applicable microcosm for every believer, and Paul teaches it {with more detail, from a different perspective, elsewhere.|Gal 6:7-8}

And what is exactly is reaped? Resurrection bodies that differ in glory, just as the sun, moon, and stars differ in glory. As we have once, now, borne the earthly (Adamic) image, we shall, in resurrection, bear the image of the heavenly, the image of our Lord Jesus. As John the apostle writes, {we shall be like Him.|1jo 3:2}

4. Paul closes {disclosing a mystery|1cor 15:50-57}. Mysteries are replete in the New Testament, and whenever one is referenced we do well to pay special heed. A “mystery” is not at all as some would teach: an inscrutable truth that one cannot comprehend. It is very different as a matter of fact: it is a secret that is revealed. There is a natural tendency by all of us to want to know a secret, and yet, strangely, when they are revealed in Scripture, somehow we pay little or no attention.

This particular mystery is that is revealed herein is the great mystery of what is now commonly referred to as the “Resurrection and Rapture” of the blessed dead. It is also sometimes known as the “First Resurrection.” The revealed secret here is that death is not necessarily required for the translation into a spiritual body, because not only must corruption put on incorruption, but mortal must put on immortality.

Therefore, the resurrection of the dead will also be accompanied by the translation of the living. In a moment, the twinkling of an eye, the smallest noticeable particle of time. Death’s sting will be conquered by those remaining alive and being translated into directly into glorified resurrection bodies, and death’s victory will be conquered by those who have died, and are resurrected in the same glorious, spiritual, heavenly bodies.

This same truth is declared more {particularly in 1st Thessalonians 4:16-18|1Th 4:16-18}

 

Living Near the Days of Lot. - Comments (1)

Category: Doctrine
Author: John Malone
Date: 27th December, 2013 @ 07:49:50 AM

When waiting for someone to arrive, you may begin to wonder when they will. You may ask, “What did he say before he left?” or, “Did he say He’d be here by now?” or, “Is he late?”

I’m applying this to the Second Coming, the return of our Lord Jesus Christ from heaven. What the church of the Thessalonians was waiting for. What everyone should be waiting for.

What DID He say before He left? A great many things, too many to cover here. The first thing He said about the subject was to not {let your heart be troubled|Jo 14:1-3}. As I write this, my heart is very troubled about very many things. I am troubled about my job, my family, my church, my friends, my city, my country: MYSELF.

But the Lord says not to be, at least with respect to His departure and return. He said He’s going to prepare a place for me, and that there is plenty of room, and if there wasn’t He’d say so, AND He said that He will come again, to receive me to Himself. That means we will both be moving. He from heaven, me from earth. As Paul told the Thessalonians, we’ll be {caught up in the clouds,|1Th 4:16-17;Rev 1:7} to meet the Lord in the air, and ever be with Him.

Comfort one another with {THESE words|1Th 4:18}.

Did He say He’d be here by now? Well, no He didn’t. Be careful you do not overlook what He said, and conclude differently. You will be in danger of saying, {in your heart|Mat 24:48-51}, “my Lord delays His coming.” The next thing you know, you will be beating the Lord’s servants. You can do that a number of ways, but mainly that’s done these days with wagging tongues. Especially female tongues by the way. Men go about it differently. More coldly.

But never mind those. They can no longer be reached anyway, their cold hearts hardened against their brethren especially, unable anymore to find comfort in the Scriptures, and so clutching the fleeting lies the world offers them. Am I saying the {love of many is growing cold?|Mat 24:12} Not yet cold enough; not yet many enough.

But didn’t the early church think He was coming right back? Perhaps many of them did, but they got wrong about a lot of stuff, just as the Bible says. The apostle Peter wrote fairly late in his ministry that the brethren needed to be mindful of {ONE THING|2Pe 3:8}: a day with the Lord is as 1,000 years, and 1,000 years is as one day. That’s time-tested truth right there. Something to ponder, to consider, to meditate. And to discover.

As I said, He said a great many things. But one thing He said was that {as it was|Lu 17:28-29} in the ‘days of Lot,’ so shall it be in the day of His apocalypse.

We’re beginning for the first time in modern history to see the “Days of Lot.” Beginning to mind you. In the days of Lot, in Sodom, homosexuality was not merely widespread, but was the entirely dominant culture. Lot had learned to tolerate it. Righteous Lot – justified Lot – as he is named in Scripture.

Abraham was on the outside. He was living in a tent, he and his extremely large household.

All generations reading the Bible since the Lord’s ascension into heaven have been able to learn that His return would be marked by the “days of Lot,” and the {“days of Noah.”|Lu 17:26-27} The “days of Lot” is a phrase targeted to believers, as Lot was most certainly one of us. Lot first pitched his tent toward, then lived in, and became a city councilman in Sodom. he had to be dragged out by angels, kicking and screaming. His wife was dragged out too, but her heart was there. {Remember her?|Lu 17:32}

Lot’s sons-in-law (perhaps the only heterosexuals left in Sodom) and married daughters, were consumed in the fire from heaven (uranium fire) that wasted Sodom, Gomorrah, and the other cities of the plain.

But what was Sodom? It was a community of depraved persons who were so sexually driven after {another kind (strange) of flesh|Jude 1:7} – the heavenly bodies used by angels when they appeared first to Abraham, and now to Lot and his neighbors – that they besieged Lot’s house like a pack of jackals, seeking to gratify themselves sexually with the angels who visited.

When Lot {addressed them|Gen 19:7-9}, and said “brethren, do not act so wickedly,” they turned on him, as your dog in a pack would actually do.

Even San Francisco, Paris, or Lincoln, Nebraska is not yet this.

These days are coming. Who would have thought it would come as quickly! I am surprised at the rapidity of the societal decline, and I saw it starting up in this specific way in 1972. The rapidity at which society, including Christians, are accepting rampant homosexuality is stunning.

The days of Lot are not upon us today, December 2013. But they look to be upon us very soon. Remember those days mark Jesus actual apocalypse, His appearing (“unveiling”) to the whole world.

It is BEFORE that time the Lord begins his descent from heaven, assembling the “synagogue on high” of His own in the air, to commence the awesome and fateful {judgment seat|2cor 5:10} whereby all our works will be tested, as by fire, to discover a rewardable remainder. And then to enjoy the city that has foundations, whose builder and maker is God.

The city {Abraham looked for …|Heb 11:8-10}

Abraham wasn’t in Sodom. He had fellowship with the Lord Jesus, and {interceded on behalf of Lot|Gen 18:20-23}, who “vexed” himself {every day|2pe 2:7-0} with the behavior of the wicked persons who surrounded him.

Abraham was separate, sanctifiable, useful to God. It’s possible. It’s not too late.

It’s not too late because Jesus is not late. He’s patient, long-suffering, waiting for men to come to knowledge of the truth.

But He’s coming swiftly. And soon.

Forsaking the Assembling: A Fresh Look at Hebrews 10:25 - Comments (0)

Category: Doctrine
Author: John Malone
Date: 1st November, 2013 @ 04:08:49 AM

Hebrews 10:24 And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works:
25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another:and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.

In the middle of 2009, I noticed something interesting about this verse. It has to do with the italicized phrase above (KJV) “the assembling of ourselves together.” This is the translators’ rendering of the Greek compound word  “episunagoge” – higher synagogue – a word found only one other place in Scripture:

2 Thessalonians 2:1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, 2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.

There’s more than just some language parallels between these verses. There is a contextual parallel in that each verse follows the presentation of this word with a reference to the Second coming of the Lord Jesus as, first, “the day approaching,” and, second, “the day of Christ is at hand.”

Therefore, the association of the “synagogue on high” with the “approaching day of Christ” is firmly established.

So what exactly is this “synagogue on high?”

In order to understand this well, we need to know that God’s view of synagogue and church has ever been about the assembling of His people and not about any physical structure. What became the synagogue to the Jews in their captivity was reminiscent of their assembling together in Jerusalem as a single congregation when they were free to do so, and had a temple. Therefore “synagogue” like “church” has a base meaning of “assembly,” just as the the translators above did catch, as “assembling … together” and “gathering together” intimate.

So what is in view here is not, as so many say, “go to church” (even though that is Biblically something to do), but is an admonition to not disregard an important doctrine that impacts our hope “as the manner of some is.”

You see, even the first century believers tended to lose the truth, contested but not lost on the Thessalonian church, and that truth was that we would be assembled in the heavens at the coming of the Lord Jesus, to be assessed at the {judgment seat of Christ|2Cor 5:10}.

Historically, as it turns out, Christians DID abandon the truth of our assembling on high prior to the Lord’s return, and, although this truth was recovered in the early 19th century revival of it in Europe, the focus of it has remained something grasped by very few believers. Despite the fact that every believer dead or living will experience this assembly, unhappily so many will be surprised at what takes place, and perhaps even more {ashamed|1Jo 2:28} during this time.

It is the case that Christians should have a faith that is future facing, {as we learn in the following chapter|Heb 11:1}, but that future-oriented view needs a focus, and that focus is the great assembly, and ensuing assize that attends it.

 

Sissies Clash With Husker Coach – Nov. 10, 1999 - Comments (0)

Category: Behind the Lines,Husker Football
Author: John Malone
Date: 3rd May, 2012 @ 11:11:27 AM

I wrote this in 1999 when Ron Brown spoke about homosexuality, and others tried to repress him, as they always do.

Wednesday, November 10, 1999

“Sissies” Clash With Cornhusker Coach

[The writer teaches Bible at Millard Community Church in Omaha, and in churches in East Africa. He was Student President/Regent from UNO in 1977.]

The University of Nebraska has sure fallen a long way in 25 years as a forum for freethinking, and free speech, not to mention free exercise. No sooner is there a complaint about Cornhusker coach Ron Brown – calling homosexuality the sin the Bible says it is – and politically correct sissies arise top-down from the university. They can’t even seem to assure us quickly enough of their readiness to repress free expression.

Regent Chairwoman Nancy O’Brien is an example: “I just can’t support taking advantage of one’s position at the university to preach their own ideas, regardless of what those ideas might be.”  O’Brien said the line between Brown’s personal and professional activities “seems to be pretty thin and pretty unclear.”

Her remarks serve as a chilling effect on all university personnel who, like Brown, who make it their purpose in life that their voice be heard. University personnel will have to tread O’Brien’s thin and vague line ever so carefully, especially when voicing opinions about homosexual conduct, or anything else that may rankle someone.

Further, her criticism of  “taking advantage of one’s position at the university” to “preach their [sic] own ideas” is the exact antithesis of what the university policy on free speech is. The people of the State of Nebraska want the university faculty to do EXACTLY that: it is the essence of teaching.

Similarly, UNL Chancellor Moeser comes off as a sissy. “I personally disagree with Coach Brown,” Moeser said concerning Brown’s broadcast on KGBI radio. Isn’t Moeser crossing O’Brien’s thin yellow line? Didn’t he “take advantage of his position at the university” to “preach his own idea” that is contrary to Brown’s?

Then Moeser offers this politically correct tidbit of repressive, and fascist policy: “He (Brown) has the right to state his opinion. I guess my concern is that we don’t want to create a climate in which any person feels that they’re being singled out or discriminated against on the basis of any personal characteristic, and that includes sexual orientation.”

Yet, the university is a climate where people with the personal characteristic of stupid or ignorant are discriminated against (or are they?). In the course of his work, Brown regularly discriminates against people with personal characteristics of short, thin, fat, slow, weak, clumsy, inattentive, nervous, and chicken. Some fans criticize him for not discriminating enough! Yet he gets paid to discriminate, AND to “create a climate” of discrimination.

Now, Bill Byrne, likewise a sissy, who wants us to know that he asked Brown to remove the word “Husker” from his show. Byrne further assures us: “He (Brown) has to be aware of what our position is and make certain that he does not go into areas that are not representative of the institution.”

According to the Constitution (and the Bible) Ron Brown is under no obligation to censure his remarks according to “what our position” is. Ron Brown is free to express his faith in the Scripture and the Lord Jesus Christ. He is free to do it on recruiting trips, and on the practice field. He is free to do it at fundraisers, and on the radio. Neither does Brown need to avoid “areas not representative of the institution” in his speech. What Byrne should realize is that when he dictates such repression to Brown, he takes state action.

Byrne’s (and Moeser’s) attempts to repress or confine Brown in the free exercise of his faith and speech are possibly illegal, and if they are maybe Byrne and Moeser should be arrested and charged with civil rights violations. In any case, their acts of repression should be met with public opposition and correction. At the very least, university leaders should make it publicly clear that their attempts to repress free speech are not representative of the athletic department, the University of Nebraska, or the people of this state.

Moeser and Byrne speak as if Brown belongs to them due to his employment, and they lend him out to others – including God – “in his own time.” Better men of more sober and humbler minds would say something like, at the very least, “I thank God for Ron Brown, and for the great freedom we have here in Nebraska to speak our minds”

Finally, where are Brown’s peers? Why haven’t the other coaches come forward? Where is the “academic community”? Where is the ACLU? Indeed, where is the Nebraska press?  Where is Tom Osborne?

Maybe we need the Attorney General on this one!

Preaching like Brown’s was the crucible of our First Amendment. After centuries of domination by the Roman Catholic Church in Europe, as well as the state church in England with its Court of the Star Chamber, those fleeing tyranny wanted their speech to be free, and especially their preachers’ to be free. The noble call of preaching has ever been that for which good men will be persecuted and arrested before they will be silenced.

When studying the subject of the First Amendment’s application in law, it is immediately recognizable is that its protections were often outlined according to the activity of Bible preachers in the public forum. The Bible teaches it is the practice of unrighteous men and women to suppress the truth, and close the public forum to God’s Word.

But sometimes the truth is suppressed by a bunch of sissies.

John J. Malone, Sr.

Egypt and Israel. - Comments (5)

Category: Prophetic
Author: John Malone
Date: 2nd February, 2011 @ 03:58:29 AM

When we look at Bible prophecy . . .

1. We do not see Egypt as an enemy of Israel.

2. Neither do we see an Israel of God, but an Israel in unbelief. This is why I am not a “Zionist.” The only Mount Zion that matters today is in heaven.

3. We also see a coming Man of Sin, called the “King of the North,” and “the beast,” and a “vile person,” who will be in conference with the worst of men – traitorous men – in Israel.

Now, while I do not see the conditions especially ripe for these matters to arise in the immediate sense, I do see all three of these conditions in formation.

Egypt, among Arab nations, is not an enemy of Israel, and hasn’t been since the last shooting war nearly 40 years ago, when Israeli tanks, until Nixon stopped them, were poised to overrun Cairo. I knew one of those tank commanders very well, and it was clear to him that Cairo was theirs to take.

Nevertheless, for reasons God Himself superintends, the détente relationship between Egypt and Israel is sanctified and will remain. Although tentative, and marked by personal resentments, and enmities, Egypt will be an opponent of the coming Beast, and his amalgamated Beast Empire, marked as it will be by ten kingdoms whose power reaches the entire world.

What that portends for the present situation is that Egypt will find its way to a correct relationship in the world, and to Israel. Despite the fact that the Israel today is one established against God, and is on its way to be, spiritually, “Sodom,” and “Egypt,” Egypt itself will find its way to at least a neutral stance, despite the fact that outside forces are doing their best to manipulate it some other way.

In fact, it appears that it will be Egypt that will first stand up to this coming Beast Empire, despite the fact that it will fail to stop him, and will thereby suffer greatly.

Now, while it’s true that Egypt will not be part with the coming Beast Empire, its neighboring countries will, including modern Ethiopia, Eritrea, Yemen, and Sudan – along with, perhaps, Somalia, Kenya, Tanzania and Zimbabwe – all ancient Ethiopia, and Libya (including Tunisia).

Next, Israel today is not the Israel of God. It is Israel in unbelief. It has been formed and led by the worst of men in Israel: murderers, terrorists, and men positively hostile to God, and intent instead on world power. It’s a sad thing, because in and around Israel are devout people, including devout Jews and Christians, who actually do have a looking to God’s will, albeit often ignorantly. And this admixture will remain until the time that this coming Beast will turn on and attack Jerusalem, causing the devout among the Jews to flee into the wilderness to be protected by God.

Before that time, Jerusalem will establish itself as the moral sinkhole of the world, becoming “Sodom,” and Egypt. God will not use the means of men, and the world, to establish His nation Israel. What we have today is the best men can engineer for an Israel. It’s a pathetic and weak imitation.

Finally, we do see the development of the underlying requirements for the Man of Sin and his Beast kingdom to arise in the world. Everywhere we look, we can see the development of the means he will use to establish his autocracy in enmity against God.

If I read Daniel Chapter 7 correctly, this Beast and his ten-fold beast-kingdom will arise as an amalgamation of the worldwide British-American establishment (Lion/Eagle), the Russian plutocracy (with its 3-fold extension) (Bear and ribs), and whatever 4-headed entity arises to dominate the Middle East prior to that time. That latter entity would seem to be some sort of Arabic/Islamic dominated governmental system, yet-to-be-formed, and springing rapidly into place (like a Leopard), and perhaps the next great world political development.

Following that last development in Gentile world power, will arise the Beast and his ten-fold kingdom.

I’m not looking forward to it in the pleasant anticipation sense, and i definitely won’t be here to see it. but as we see the dark clouds forming, the storm cannot be far off, and we are stimulated and admonished to work while it is yet day, for there is a night coming when no one can work.

Daniel on Egypt. - Comments (0)

Category: Prophetic
Author: John Malone
Date: 1st February, 2011 @ 06:54:40 AM

Once you have seen it before, the overhauling of a government, such as is going on in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, and perhaps several others (we’ll see) today is a little easier to figure out.

People live according to whom they listen. Vladimir Lenin listened to the “Classical Writers,” and became a monstrous autocrat.

Islamic leaders appear to listen whichever selective train of thought streams from the system of Islam through the “Ayatollahs that be,” or the “Mullahs on hand.” I was once in a system like that, whereby people with more or less strong attachment, were told what to do by bishops and priests. For instance, I was too young to figure out how they told everyone in our Roman Catholic parish to vote for Kennedy, but they did get that done.

Here in the West, people are listening to the unabashedly twisted renditions of freedom (now called “choices”) and liberty (now always labelled “democracy.”) Gone is the uniquely American concept of personal sovereignty, derived from God alone.

A democracy today is far more easily to foment and manipulate than the far slower, more careful forms of government that may have preceded it. A truly representative republic, such was once the United States – long ago, I’m afraid – is never going to be an important agenda in the times in which we live.

One thing we learn from the Book of Daniel is that there will be constant decline of authority in human government as time moves along. By time, more specifically, I mean the “times of the Gentles” which have gone on now for 2,500 years. These times are coming to a close, and we know something of the end to which the world now seems hurtling at a breakneck pace.

Many people enabling and carrying out this mad dash are oblivious to where it is ending. As a youth, I certainly was for awhile. I’d say six years. Any young man who has no Bible background by the time he is 18 will be swept away with the notions of the day. And there are very, very few young men with such backgrounds.

In Africa and the Middle East today, clearly the plasticized notions of choices and democracy are getting some sway. But what I think we are truly seeing is an engineered regime change largely from the outside. I’ve seen the pattern. In Kenya, the sparks were much sharper. The level of violence was higher. Yet it was contained. The military was never threatened to be out of containment.

True revolutions rarely happen. I recall my first political science class at the university. It was taught by a highly educated and rare man who worked very hard, and yet donated his time. He intoned in perhaps the very first class, and turned it into a mantra for a time: “Revolutions by definition are bloody. If it is not bloody, it is not a revolution.”

Well, we aren’t seeing any revolutions. What we are seeing are armed forces taking neutral positions from their national leaders, “feeling strongly both ways,” politically. What we have is unconsolidated power at the top of these governments. Some might argue that when authority is poorly organized, it is not power at all.

After all, these leaders, no matter their character, did not pay for their own military development, nor did they oversee the training of their armies, nor do they have a prosperous future ahead of their military leaders. Someone else did, and someone else did, and someone else does!

So what we will see in whichever of these countries are selected to undergo regime change are coalition governments formed by parties recognized outside these countries. These coalitions will be composed elements beholding to “the west,” elements acceptable to Russia and China, criminal elements, and factions sufficient to represent the power interests of the Middle East, which will be “Islamic.”

None of these new coalition governments will be built on principle, and none of them will have a firm hold on their own military institutions. We’ve seen it all in Kenya, just recently.

What we are seeing is the systematic development of transnational elites, all of which will one day easily and willingly fall into the hands of the coming Man of Sin. We see iniquity at work – we who have the eyes of our understanding (hearts) enlightened – and one day this world will see it embodied. As for now, we see the decay of God-ordained authority in the earth as Gentile Power moves into the “Halls of Belshazzar.” (Dan.5)

The Prophet Daniel was told many specific things about Egypt. Perhaps we will get to that.

In the example of Daniel, we will observe carefully, and look to God for our renewed directions on being salt and light.

How Do We Know If Obama Is Christian? - Comments (10)

Category: Applied,Articles,Venture in Africa
Author: John Malone
Date: 20th August, 2010 @ 07:24:51 AM

Due to the controversy surrounding the faith of Barack Obama, a.k.a. Barry Soetoro, a.k.a. POTUS, the subject arises of how can we know if someone is a Christian or not.

Listening to the pundits, such as Rush Limbaugh, the matter becomes more confusing, not less. For instance, yesterday Limbaugh was citing a poll that fewer and fewer Americans believe Obama is a Christian, and more and more of them think he is a Muslim. Today, Limbaugh is claiming that President Clinton was very obviously a Christian. This coming from a guy that couldn’t tell you the second thing about “Christian,” and yet Christians listen to him far more than they do their own preachers.

I seem to remember that, during the campaign of 2008, the subject of Obama’s Christianity arose. Now, In American politics, the quality of someone’s Christian faith doesn’t really arise in large public discussions. All sorts of sectarian church memberships are accepted as Christian, and pretty much that is that. President Reagan ran as a Christian, and then stories emerged that he became one after he was shot. President Bush was accorded Christian standing on the basis of his Episcopalian church affiliation, and became better known when he claimed in the public debates that Jesus Christ was the most influential person to him because “He changed my life.” Nixon was a Quaker. Kennedy was Catholic. And so forth.

If I remember correctly, the question of Obama’s Christianity arose at the time of the Iowa caucuses, and our own Nebraska Senator former Governor Ben Nelson stepped up to certify to us that Obama was a Christian. Forget for the moment that Nelson’s Christian credentials in Nebraska come as a surprise to many of us. Among Christian circles in which I have moved in Omaha, Nelson has ridden in on the Christian coattails of politically and socially ambitious Christian women, one of whom has made her “Christian career” to accept Roman Catholics into Bible-teaching churches, even to the point of placing them occasionally in the pulpit.

So, from my view, Obama’s Christian testimony comes from someone – a US Senator! – whose Christian testimony comes from a woman that I know, and her friends, who will admit anyone that says, “I believe in God, and I am a Christian” to actually be a Christian.

Now my standard of Christian testimony is no narrower than the Bible’s. When Jesus {asked his disciples|Mat 16:13-17} who people said He was, and then who THEY said He was, Peter answered simply, and correctly. When Jesus told Martha, at the occasion of her brother Lazarus’ death and subsequent resurrection from the dead, that He is “the resurrection, and the life,” she {correctly answered him|Jo 11:25-27}, just as Peter did.

I have traveled Obama’s fatherland extensively, having been involved in Kenya as a business man and preacher for above 17 years now. During the campaign, while I was in Kenya, every man-Njoroge of them believed Obama was a Kenyan. They did not understand the unique provision in US constitutional law concerning natural birth. In fact, in public marketplaces, unknown Kenyans would come up to me, and simply shout “OBAMA!” into my face. They named large beers after him. In the US, you may run down to the nearby gas station or convenient mart for a “40.” In Kenyan bars, and slums, guys were knocking down “Obamas.” Beyond merely being Kenyan, Obama is regarded there as a Luo. In fact, after the US-supported (some even say sponsored) referendum to alter the Kenyan constitution – held on Obama’s birthday – Obama is qualified to be the President of Kenya. While there is no question about that, questions still linger whether he’s qualified by his birth, or even citizenship, to be President of the United States.

Obama is no doubt beholding to his Luo tribesmen, who at the very least can be expected to get his back if anyone besides Jerome Corsi travels there to investigate. Corsi was thrown out of the country. During the Kenyan elections, when the controversy arose concerning rigged results, it was the US that pressed Luo “cousin” Raila Odinga – a physically powerful man who loves race cars, was trained in Russia, and for years was rumored to be “KGB” – into a hastily created “Prime Minister” position in order to give the second largest tribe in Kenya a stake in the government, devolve the Kenyan presidency, and satisfy the militant Luo political forces which threatened to set the nation ablaze after Mwai Kibaki’s rigging-stained “election.”

Odinga’s supporters insist to this day he won the election. He was aided and abetted in his campaign not only by Obama visits, but by the political strategies designed by Dick Morris. Morris seems to pose these days as if conservative, but it puzzles me because he was a chief Clinton strategist. Well, he’s yesterday’s liberal, so I suppose now he IS a conservative.

It’s amazing to me that, in America, the most powerful nation on earth, we are being served up consecutive Democratic Presidents with questionable parentages. What a coincidence. What an anomaly. Who would have ever guessed?

But Obama’s US citizenship credentials are only disturbing at an earthly level. We who study the Scriptures understand that in the times we live, there will be all sorts of problematic people running about in our times, even including {traitors|2Ti 3:1-5} in the list.

His credentials as a Christian are far, far more suspect, but much more easily sorted out. There must be some kind of profession of faith in Jesus Christ. That’s the credential, and the only credential. That profession is not about whether or not one is “Christian.” {Other people called believers “Christians.”|Acts 11:26} Christians professed the Lord Jesus Christ for Who He is. Historically, that is done in Christian baptism.

We know Obama was born to a Kenyan father. Reportedly, he was a Muslim, even if a nominal one. I was born to a Roman Catholic father, ad adult “convert” who had no faith, and joined that organization to make my mom and her family happy. That organization inducted me into its membership by way of infant christening, and from there I was indoctrinated in the Roman Catholic religion. I don’t know anything about Muslim rites at birth, but I understand if you’re born to a Muslim father, you’re accepted as a Muslim, at least by them. Then, Obama was reportedly later adopted as Barry Soetoro, and was indoctrinated in Islam. In my case, I became a Christian – by profession alone – in 1975. I was immersed in water a couple of years later, making a public statement of my faith before assembled witnesses.

Does Obama have a baptism record of any kind? Someone had to be watching his baptism, if indeed he was baptized. “Barack Obama, have you been baptized since you believed?” Obama’s home church, Trinity United Church of Christ, is affiliated with the United Church of Christ, which has a relatively stringent view of adult baptism, requiring as they do the recitation and belief of the Apostle’s Creed. At Easter time, they ask their members to recite it. I understand Obama can recite in clear Arabic whatever one of the five “prayers” are that Muslims recite daily. I wonder if he would recite the Apostle’s Creed, like any good UCC member would do?

I find it very interesting that Obama’s home church is just now featuring former Omaha Salem Baptist Church pastor Maurice Watson on their web site. While I was not happy to learn of Watson’s Jesuit training at Creighton University, when I asked him directly about his faith not so many years ago, he was quick to tell me that, concerning salvation, he believed in “sola fide (faith alone)” and “sola scriptura (Scripture alone).” That’s not too far from the very solid “Grace alone by faith alone in Christ alone.” Watson conducted “revival” meetings at Obama’a former home church.

So Trinity (Chicago) UCC at least welcomes someone whose first thought is not “Liberation Theology,” which, by the way, has its roots in Jesuit teaching. Large churches like Chicago’s Trinity are a complex mix within their congregations. No black church in America can long even call itself “Christian,” and feature ONLY the kind of politically charged preaching of a Jeremiah Wright, or a Jesse Jackson, or a Martin Luther King, Jr. Nevertheless, this particular church, where, let’s face it, people like Barack Obama probably had only the most tangential attachment, is thoroughly imbued with eth leaven of Herod, and therefore has as its primary focus not the Scriptures of God, but the plans and political strategies of men.

Just like large churches that are predominately white, large black churches that appeal to the growing black middle and upper middle classes feature a jumbled mess of doctrine, and a thorny mix of saved and lost.

If Obama is Christian, he has something of the kind of experience of faith in Christ that all Christians have. “Once I was lost, now I’m found.” It would be nice to trace it out historically. People should ask him plainly when he first made a profession of faith in Christ, and if he was baptized, when and where. Simple questions, and easy answers for a Christian. But if that’s too complex, and he has fuzzy recollections, or lack of knowledge, that’s still no problem.

Someone should just ask him the simple question posed to Peter by Jesus Christ: “Who do YOU say that I am?” That will settle the whole issue.

Will someone ask him? I doubt it.