Marriage and the Family

• About this site

Personal Story of Becky Kew - "In our small town of 800 people, it seemed as if drinking was all there was to do. I remember times when my Mom and Dad fought. I used to wonder: Why do they love this brown bottle so much when it brings so much misery? Why don't they love me? Is this all my fault?  One time he had her pinned down on the coffee table and I really thought that this time, he would kill her." (more)

• About this site

The Music of Glorybound

• About this site

"Take the Challenge"

• About this site

 Here's the Difference

• About this site

Safety, Certainty and Enjoyment

• About this site

What is the Illuminati conspiracy theory and One World Government?

The illuminati conspiracy is the idea that there has always been an evil group of men working behind the scenes of world politics and world business with the end of enslaving the masses to work for their purposes.  Supposedly the group began with five men in the order of the Jesuit Priests and continues today after many generations.

It is always assumed that the members of this group control events through manufactured crisis and gradual ownership of global assets.  Unaware of the hidden agenda, we common people, are slipping gradually into their control through organizations such as the United Nations, the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, International Criminal Court and others.

Major banks, industries, transportation, stock markets are supposed to be in their hands to be able to lead to a one world economy, one world religion and one world government. Whenever this "New World Order" comes to reality, the Illuminati will be the hands at the wheel.

Such fears of global dominion by one person or group of people are based partly on prophecy in the Bible.  We read in the Bible in the person of the Antichrist and his companion, the False Prophet.  2 Thessalonians 2:1-15" TARGET="_blank">2 Thessalonians 2:1-15 tells of his demands for absolute authority, lifting himself as God.  Revelation 13:1-18" TARGET="_blank">Revelation 13:1-18 tells of his rise to power in the symbol of a beast rising out of the sea and his demand of control of all economic activity with his seal 666 on the forehead or hand of every citizen.

It must be remembered that while Satan my be the inspiration behind the Antichrist, God is ultimately in control of all world events and world leaders.  God can use evil people to carry out his plans without their knowing it (Isaiah 10:5," TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 10:5, Isaiah 10:7)." TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 10:7).   He uses nations to punish his people Israel (Judges 2:14-15," TARGET="_blank">Judges 2:14-15, Judges 2:21-23;" TARGET="_blank">Judges 2:21-23; Judges 2:3:12)." TARGET="_blank">Judges 2:3:12).  He can also harden people's resolve to self-destruction (Joshua 11:20;" TARGET="_blank">Joshua 11:20; Judges 7:22)." TARGET="_blank">Judges 7:22).  Even the Antichrist will be under God's control and punished at the end of time (Revelation 20:1-10)." TARGET="_blank">Revelation 20:1-10).

Shad Sluiter

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

Is the "fear of death" no longer satanic in its origin?

This page was adapted from an answer at Truth and Tidings Magazine by David Oliver.

Satan used Adam as the instrument to bring death into the world (Romans 5:12)." TARGET="_blank">Romans 5:12). So it may be said the Satan is the origin of death in the world.  The fear of death, though, has human origins.  However Satan can use it effectively as his tool.

The verse, therefore is not making a difference between those who lived before Christ and others who were born after the cross.  It would be incorrect to say that believers or unbelievers in times before Christ were more afraid of death. However, it is correct to say that we have a much clearer understanding of Eternity and life after death.  We should anticipate heaven more than even the greatest saints of the Old Testament.

D. Oliver

• About this site

KESWICK TEACHING
What is meant by the following exhortation :—“There is the surrender that claims the filling of the Spirit”? Is this “Keswick” teaching?

Though never having been present at what is called the Keswick Convention, one naturally has a certain acquaintance with the so-called “Keswick” teaching. The motto, “All one in Christ Jesus,” is a commendable recognition of that blessed unity created by the baptism in the Holy Spirit, which exists between all true believers in this dispensation (1 Corinthians 12:13)" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 12:13) in spite of the sad divisions which rend them externally. It is good to recognise this at least during one week of the year, and better still during the remaining fifty-one. In fact, we are responsible to do so on the basis of the seven-fold unity of Ephesians 4:4-6," TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 4:4-6, and to put away everything which man has set up in addition to, or in diminution from, these seven basal facts, which may mar that unity of the Spirit, which we are enjoined to keep in the bond of peace. We are never told to keep the Unity of the Body, but to recognise it, and carry it out practically, not by forbidding the introduction of any subject, or Bible truth on which people differ, but by separation from everything which will not bear the test of God’s Word.
No doubt God has blessed the meetings at Keswick, and that, not because of any particular panacea of sanctification, peculiar to the place, but because the Word of God is generally preached on evangelical lines, and Christ presented as the object of faith and as God’s sufficient resource for every need. It is impossible for this to be done without blessing resulting. When we come to details. I fear it must be said that “Keswick” teaching concerning the reception of the Spirit by an act of faith subsequent to conversion and based on “absolute surrender” is seriously at fault. The case of the twelve disciples at Ephesus in Acts 19" TARGET="_blank">Acts 19 is adduced as a typical example of this. On the contrary, it is quite unique. I never heard of such a case happening in any country in the world since. The question which seems to lend itself to the erroneous notion here combated, “Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?” is a mistranslation, as the R.V. (based on the literal Greek) shows, for, “Did ye receive the Holy Ghost when ye believed?” The normal order is given in Ephesians 1:13" TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 1:13: “m whom having believed, ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise.”
The case of these twelve disciples may be taken up later. It may suffice here to remark that the filling of the Spirit is not an attainment reached once for all, and which may puff up the recipient, or put him on a pedestal above his fellow Christians, as some spurious fillings of the Spirit seem apt to do, but a humbling and self-emptying experience, true to faith and which makes Christ more real to the soul. Such an experience is repeated and progressive. Directly that teaching on the Spirit puts Him forward as the object of faith, and eclipses the Lord Jesus Christ ever so little, the teaching is so far off the lines. Certainly “full surrender” is good and reasonable, but how much it implies is perhaps realised by few who claim to have made it. It is generally associated in men’s minds with going out as a missionary to the ends of the earth; it is needed as much and perhaps more, for the humdrum tasks of everyday life in the home, or for separation from “religious” practices and associations, which have no divine authority.
There is always danger of connecting blessing with some spiritual “Mecca,” some sacred geographical spot on earth, instead of with the Person of Christ of whom the poet sings:
“Where’er they seek Thee, Thou art found,
And every place is hallowed ground.”

• About this site

• About this site

The Bible teaches that the consequence of sin is death.

Genesis 2:16-17" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 2:16-17  And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "You may surely eat of every tree of the garden,  (17)  but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."

Romans 6:23" TARGET="_blank">Romans 6:23  For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Natual Consequences

Even the most rabid libertarian structures his life on the system of reward and punishment built into nature. Although he may choose to dispense with any reward and punishment system in raising his child, he pursues the reward of continued life by eating appropriate foods. He avoids the punishment of terminating life by not eating poison. If there were no consistency of cause and effect, we would randomly stumble toward annihilation of the planet. On one day, sterilizing a baby's feeding bottle might preserve him from germs. On the next day, it might take the child's life. In the physical realm, we recognize the necessity of both a positive and negative system of cause and effect.

If no concept of reward and punishment existed in the moral realm, God would be removed from His throne. If, on the one hand, every act (whether consistent with God's character or not) had a beneficial outcome, God would not be holy On the other hand, if every act (whether consistent with God's character or not) had a harmful outcome, God would not be good.

What is Justice?

If, then, we recognize the value of a system of reward and punishment, let me pose a series of questions, addressing two basic issues. First, is justice - a fair system of reward and punishment - possible? Second, what punishments are appropriate?

Is Justice Possible?

When ruffians roam the streets randomly victimizing the innocent, is there no inner voice that says, "This must be stopped?" Can a man of means and charisma viciously end the lives of two others and continue to live comfortably without any public outcry? Can two men further their private agenda by blasting millions of dollars worth of public property and incidently snuffing out over 160 lives, randomly scaring scores of families for life, without someone asserting that there must be justice?

History records many instances of benevolent rule in the hands of a strong leader, yet the general lesson of past history is that power corrupts men and that a craving for power drives corrupt men. Power concentrated in the hands of a man or a totalitarian state has endangered, rather than ensured, justice. Decentralized power placed in the hands of the governed is now having its run at a place in history. If we concede that democracy is the best form of government that man can devise, are we satisfied with justice as it now exists? Is it an unfair generalization to state that society consoles itself with the thought that the system is not perfect, but it is the best we can do?

Is idealism dead? Has the humanist arrived at the conclusion that the only alternative is unacceptable? Or shall we who worship the God who embodies moral absolutes concede that His character shall never be vindicated and His universe is beyond His power to regulate?

Justice is only possible in the hand of a sovereign and righteous God. God has stated, "He will judge the world in righteousness" (Acts 17:31)." TARGET="_blank">Acts 17:31). His holy character and the sordid path of history demand that He carry out justice. His holy character and His sovereignty give Him the right to carry out justice. His supreme power uniquely enables Him to carry out justice, He must, He should, He can an He will punish sin!
What Punishments are Appropriate?

Recognizing that God alone is capable of administering justice, we must allow Him to choose what is just as a penalty for sin. And He has already disclosed the penalty. As unacceptable to the modern mind as it may be, the Scriptures declare that Sinners "shall go away into everlasting punishment" (Matthew 25:46)." TARGET="_blank">Matthew 25:46).

John R.W. Stott, noted evangelical theologian, claims that his statement in recent years was merely wondering out loud about the eventual annihilation of sinners. Suddenly men who claim to acknowledge the authority of the Bible have poured out of their closets to jump on the bandwagon which once carried only modernists and cultists. These evangelicals have joined hands to teach that annihilation, not eternal, conscious punishment, awaits the unbeliever. What does the Bible teach?

Examples from the Scriptures

What else can be the meaning of Jude's statement that "Sodom and Gomorrah ... are [not were] set forth for an example, suffering [not suffered, but are suffering] the vengeance of eternal fire" (Jude 1:7)" TARGET="_blank">Jude 1:7)? Can it be possible that those who worship the Beast have been annihilated when the Scriptures say, "the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night" (Revelation 14:11)" TARGET="_blank">Revelation 14:11)? The story of the Rich Man (Luke 16:19-31)" TARGET="_blank">Luke 16:19-31) is a factual account, complete with the names of two of the individuals involved. Was the rich man consciously enduring punishment when he said, "I am tormented in this flame" (Luke 16:24)" TARGET="_blank">Luke 16:24)? Was there any prospect of an end of this conscious torment when Abraham told him the "great gulf" was fixed? No one would ever give him relief by going there; no one could ever grant him release to come from there verse 26). Why did the Lord say that living without an eye or hand or foot is preferable to being in "hell fire" (Mark 9:43-48)" TARGET="_blank">Mark 9:43-48)? Could He have exaggerated when He reiterated that "their worm dieth not?" The word "worm" is figurative, but He clearly implied that "their worm" is a personal anguish that will never "die". Is annihilation consistent with the Lord's repeated refrain linking this personal, unending anguish with "the fire that never shall be quenched?" Just reviewing these passages which are so clear in teaching eternal, conscious punishment is overwhelming to heart and mind. Those we love are rushing to this incomparable, unthinkable tragedy.

Can a Loving God Condemn Eternally?

But why such an extreme and severe punishment from a loving God? Perhaps the reason so many try to rule out eternal, conscious punishment is because of failure to understand the offensiveness of sin to God. Every sin defies the authority of God by saying that man has the right to decide what is beneficial for himself. Every sin denies the goodness of the character of God. If sin is defined by the character of God, not merely by an arbitrary choice God has made, then every choice to sin says that sin is good and therefore that God is not good. Every sin displays an inveterate hatred toward God. Sin rent the heart of God with the agony of Calvary. Sinners need to know this and saints need to be reminded of this: sin is so offensive, abominable and destructive in God's view, that nothing else is an appropriate penalty but eternal, conscious punishment.

Shortly after a pipe bombing in Centennial Olympic Park Atlanta, marred the 1996 Olympics, a radio commentator was extolling the virtues of the Olympic Games. He opined that they represent the best of athletic achievement, endeavor and devotion; they showcase the ideal of global harmony, as athletes from vastly different cultures compete in an atmosphere of mutual respect; by their long tradition, they form a link with what is good in the past. He reviewed the tragic killings at the Munich Olympics in 1972 and then expressed his revulsion toward the person who so senselessly, callously and violently dared to spoil such an exalted event as the Olympics. He cryptically closed his commentary with a call for damnation on such an individual, "whoever he may be." Because the bomber desecrated such a special, significant and unique event, the commentator deemed him worthy of damnation.

Judge Hiroshi Fujisaki who presided over 0.J. Simpson's civil trial denied a defense request for a new trial. He considered the $33.5 million judgment "reasonable and not excessive." Why? "The reprehensibility of this defendant is without a doubt most grievous and beyond comparison." And what shall we say of the sinner whose sin has stained God's world with the blood of His Son, has attempted to besmirch the pristine character of God and has affronted the very throne of God? "Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy...?" (Hebrews 10:29)." TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 10:29).

• About this site

CHRIST’S PRIESTHOOD
When did the High Priesthood of Christ begin, at the offering of Himself on the cross, or upon His sitting down at God’s right hand?

If I were to ask, at what point in the record given us in the 8th and 9th chapters of Leviticus did the high priesthood of Aaron begin, I should probably receive various replies. Some possibly would tell me that he was high priest from the very beginning of the first day of the eight mentioned in these chapters, when he was put forward, before the congregation (chap. 8. 2-5), as the one God had “called” (Hebrews 5:4)" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 5:4) for the position. Others might say that his priesthood should be reckoned from after the bathing, and clothing, and anointing, and offering (including that of the ram of consecration) on that first day had been completed. Others still might think that only at the end of the seven “days of consecration” (chap. 8. 3) could he be called high priest; while some perhaps would suggest that his priesthood did not effectively begin until he commenced to act on the people’s behalf during the transactions of the eighth day (chap. 9. 15). If I got these replies, could I say that any of them was entirely wrong? I do not think so.

Let us then see what the Hebrews epistle has to tell us about the beginning of the High Priesthood of Christ. In Hebrews 9:11," TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 9:11, after a description of the ministry of the Old Testament high priests, we read, “But Christ having (R.V.) come a High Priest . . . entered in . . . having obtained eternal redemption.” Here the expression “having come a High Priest” seems to suggest that, right from the commencement of His Activities in connection with obtaining redemption, He was acting in priestly character; and definitely so, before He “entered in.” Then in Hebrews 2:17" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 2:17 we get, “It behoved Him to be made like unto His brethren, that He might become (see Greek, or Newberry) a. . . High Priest . . . to make propitiation (R.V.) for the sins of the people.” In this passage His becoming High Priest is made consequent on His having been made “like unto His brethren,” and yet it was as High Priest that He made propitiation for sins. Again, in Hebrews 6:20" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 6:20 (R.V.) we read, “Whither as a forerunner Jesus entered for us, having become a High Priest”; which appears to imply that His “entering” followed immediately upon His becoming Priest. Next, in Hebrews 5:10," TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 5:10, after having “learned obedience by the things which He suffered” (this, in light of Phil 2:8" TARGET="_blank">Phil 2:8 surely including His death), and after having thus been “made perfect”; He is then “named (R.V.) of God a High Priest after the order of Melchizedek,” probably in the sense that there was a proclamation of His Priesthood at His ascension. Lastly, in Hebrews 8:4" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 8:4 we are told that His Priesthood is not “on earth,” and in Hebrews 7:26" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 7:26 that it is in a sphere where He is “separated (R.V.) from sinners, and made higher than the heavens.”

In view of all this, would I be safe in setting down as wrong: (1) the person who says that when Christ offered up Himself He was Priest as well as Sacrifice; or (2) the person who tells me that His Priesthood is part of the outcome of His death; or (3) the person who states that for the exercise of His Priesthood, He required to be where He now is, in the heavenly Sanctuary? In each case, I do not think so.

W.R.

• About this site

Who are the speakers in the Song of Solomon?

Some say they are Christ and the Church; others, God and Israel. Who is the questioner In Song of Solomon 5:9" TARGET="_blank">Song of Solomon 5:9?
The Song of Songs is not, of course, a mere love-song; nor is it a song of espousals, but a marriage song. Certain companies of persons are introduced and take part in the dialogue, e.g., the watchmen, the daughters of Jerusalem; but the Bridegroom and the bride are the principals. Who are they? The Church was an unrevealed mystery in the Old Testament, so may safely be ruled out. Surely there can be no doubt that we have in this Book, a beautiful picture of the affections of Jehovah toward the true Israel, and the response of the bride. “I am married to you, saith Jehovah” (Jeremiah 3:14)." TARGET="_blank">Jeremiah 3:14). “Thy maker is thy husband” (Isaiah  54:5). The watchmen of the city seem to represent men of the world with no sympathy for the bride, while the daughters of Jerusalem may stand for nominal Israel. These distinctions being made, the inspired language of the Book fits in well with the affections of a believer to-day toward Christ, when enjoying communion with the “Lover of his soul.” The spiritual believer knows how to use the Book in this way to his own soul’s blessing and to the glory of Christ.
W.H.

• About this site

• About this site