Obama in Indonesia wedding Christianity to Islam

Obama has been in Indonesia this week, poking his fingers into the eye of the one true God.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/we-have-much-more-work-to-do-20101110-17np0.html

Earlier Mr Obama had visited Indonesia's Grand Mosque, south-east Asia's largest, with his wife, Michelle, and cited it as a source of inspiration. ''This house of worship for many thousands of Muslims was designed by a Christian architect,'' he said to applause. ''Such is Indonesia's spirit. Such is the message of Indonesia's inclusive philosophy: pancasila.

''People choose to worship God as they please. Islam flourishes, but so do other faiths. Here we can find the ability to bridge divides of race and region and religion. That ability to see yourself in other people.''

The very first Commandment, that God never replaced is in Exodus 20
I am the LORD your God...“You shall have no other gods before me."

Obama could have said 'people choose to worship their god as they please'. If he said that, it would have been acceptable. But they all can't be worshipping God because they don't recognise Jesus Christ as the Son of God. The Bible makes it clear. If you are worshipping any other God, you are worshipping a worthless idol.
The only inspiration that an Islamic mosque can provide is the architecture. People can't worship God as they please and certainly not within the religion of Islam. Jesus is the seed of Abraham and is the Son of God. All authority has been given to him and Obama, who professes to be a Christian, must see that other faiths flourishing should be a source of distress. Being reconciled across religions in recognition that we all live in one global society and must all live peacefully is fine. But uniting Christianity with an anti-Christ religion is not possible.

Your stripes are beginning to look a little dubious Mr Obama. Stand up for your God and recognise him before men!

Hipster Faith | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction

Hipster Faith Christianity Today A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction

Food for thought!

MidEast Peace talks

So here we go again, another round of peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians. Another effort on top of the past failures:

UN Security Council Resolution 242, 1967
Camp David Accords, 1978
The Madrid Conference, 1991
Oslo Agreement, 1993
Camp David, 2000
Taba, 2001
Saudi peace plan, 2002
Roadmap, 2003
Geneva Accord, 2003
Annapolis, 2007

Jerusalem is quite the burden.
Who's attending the Peace talks this time around?
Benjamin Netanyahu (Judaism - haven't yet recognised their Messiah)
Mahmoud Abbas (Islam)
Mohamed Hosni Mubarak (Islam)
Barack Obama (Christian)
What does God think about the land of Israel and its region (not the people, but the land?) Reading through the Old Testament, it is obvious that God is not only zealous for the house of Israel but is equally zealous for the land they were to inherit.

Leviticus 25:23 'The land must not be sold permanently, because the land is mine and you are but aliens and my tenants.'

Deuteronomy 11:12 'It is a land the LORD your God cares for; the eyes of the LORD your God are continually on it from the beginning of the year to its end.'

The House of Judah was left desolate and the Jews were kicked out the the Holy Land (a Jesus prophecy from Matthew 23)

God certainly doesn't recognise any other rivals occupying it (Romans, Ottomans, Islamic Palestinians in East Jerusalem), but recognised they would have their 15 minutes of fame:
(Luke 21-24: 'Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.')
For some reason God is attached to the Promised Land, and especially to Jerusalem. I wish these guys luck in finding peace but until they recognise who actually owns the piece of turf, any peace will probably be temporal. It is not Eastern Europe they are negotiating for here, it is a patch of land God has made plain in the Bible he is quite fond of. He will not forever tolerate other gods being served there.

Matthew 23:37-38: O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing. Look, your house is left to you desolate. For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.

Jerusalem will not see peace again until it recognises Jesus. Judaistic and Islamic buildings in Jerusalem do not recognise Jesus Christ as the Messiah and will therefore not experience a meaningful or lasting peace.

In the meantime, it's probably good to pursue peace anyway, because its better than handing out firearms.

Do children go to heaven?

This is always a difficult question to answer. I've always answered this question in the past by saying 'God is a just God so whatever decision he makes will be just.'
But, it is always nice to get a glimpse of God's justness with a practical example within the Bible.
In Numbers 14, the Israelites are on the brink of entering the Promised Land that God promised Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. They sent spies into the land to scope the place out. The spies came back saying that the land was good but the Nephilim were there and they were big looking. The Israelites complained that God brought them out of Egypt only for them to fall by the sword. God replied to Moses:
 'How long will these people treat me with contempt? How long will they refuse to believe in me, in spite of all the miraculous signs I have performed among them?'.
God's judgement was:
'not one of them will ever see the land I promised on oath to their forefathers. No one who has treated me with contempt will ever see it...As for your children that you said would be taken as plunder, I will bring them in to enjoy the land you have rejected.
Once the Israelites were on the verge of the Promised Land again after a generation of wandering in the desert, God gave them a history lesson via Moses and reiterated:
 'the little ones that you said would be taken captive, your children who do not yet know good from bad—they will enter the land. I will give it to them and they will take possession of it.'

This is just a thought. I haven't looked into it that deeply. There is probably a deeper scriptural lesson that I've overlooked. But if the Promised Land is a 'type' of what is to come i.e Heaven, I'd say this is a little insight into the attitude God has, when it comes to children arriving at the judgement seat.

God is not your besty! He is the Lord your God

As God was giving the 10 Commandments to Moses at Mount Sinai, God's presence was there for the people of Israel to see:
Ezekiel 20: 18-20 - When the people saw the thunder and lightning and heard the trumpet and saw the mountain in smoke, they trembled with fear. They stayed at a distance and said to Moses, "Speak to us yourself and we will listen. But do not have God speak to us or we will die."

Moses said to the people, "Do not be afraid. God has come to test you, so that the fear of God will be with you to keep you from sinning."

It is interesting that the Israelites had to have the 'fear' of God to keep them from sinning. In the modern day vernacular, God literally pulled out a bit of 'shock and awe' for the benefit of Israel.  The 'fear of God' evidently does not mean to be 'afraid' of God because Moses started his response with 'Do not be afraid'. There is a difference between being 'fearful' and being 'afraid'. Israel was God's chosen people to be a kingdom of priests and a holy nation, yet they were still called to 'fear' the Lord their God.

Now that we Gentiles have been grafted into the branch of Israel, we are also his chosen people, and we too are called to 'fear' God.

Christians still have to appear before the judgement seat of God to receive our inheritance and the knowledge of this leads us to 'fear the Lord':
2 Corinthians 5: 10-11 - For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad. Since, then, we know what it is to fear the Lord, we try to persuade men.

'Fear' without being 'afraid' is the domain of the Christian.
Being 'afraid' is probably reserved for those who deny Jesus Christ and only realise what they have done when their number is up. Knowing what it means to 'fear' God motivates us to persuade the non-believer.

Christians don't have to 'fear' being rejected by God. We are supposed to live out the reality of our salvation with 'fear and trembling'.
2 Philippians 2: 12-13 - Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose.

So what does 'fear of the Lord' mean for the Christian? I'm no theologian and don't know what 'fear' means in the ancient Hebrew dialect. God doesn't need us to be multi-lingual or be the sharpest tool in the shed to understand what 'fear of the Lord' means. We are to fear is nature. We are to fear who he really is. God starts the 10 commandments by establishing who Israel is reckoning with. He clears this up before he lays down the commandments on how they should treat each other. The 10 commandments start with 'I am the Lord your God, you shall have no other gods before me'. He is a jealous God. To 'fear' God is not to fear eternal punishment. 'Fear' is for the believers. 'Fear' is knowing who God is and knowing he won't share his supremacy with anyone else.

The rich young ruler in Mark 10 asked Jesus, what must he do to inherit eternal life. Jesus replied that he should keep the commandments (i.e 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother). The rich young man did all these things. He adhered to the commandments on how to treat is fellow man.  It is interesting that Jesus 'looked at him and loved him'. Jesus' command to sell everything he had and give to the poor was not even part of the 10 commandments. I reckon Jesus knew the way the young ruler regarded his wealth was in violation of  'You shall have no other gods before me'. Jesus looked upon him with love, but saw that the young ruler was lacking in fear. Therefore just because God loves us, it doesn't mean that we shouldn't fear him.

The New Testament is in the Old Testament concealed; the Old Testament is in the New Testament revealed

To borrow a line from Chuck Missler ‘The New Testament is in the Old Testament concealed; the Old Testament is in the New Testament revealed.’
The Old Testament is not only for the Jews to believe in. Believing in Jesus Christ as the Messianic Saviour, as Christians do, is absurd without the foundation of the Old Testament.
Why would you believe in a guy who says he is the Saviour without any authentication?
Jesus’ authentication is found in the Old Testament.

There are over 300 Messianic Prophecies concerning Jesus Christ. No one else fits.

Jesus went to great lengths to claim himself as the Messiah by continually putting himself in context with the Old Testament. For example, when Jesus went to the Synagogue in his home town of Nazareth, he read from an Old Testament prophecy (Isaiah 61). Jesus read:

The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to release the oppressed,
to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor."[e]

Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him, and he began by saying to them, "Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing." (Luke 4)

The actual prophecy he was reading from is in Isaiah:

The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; to proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God, to comfort all who mourn." -Isaiah 61:1-2

On a side note, it is interesting why Jesus stopped part way through verse 2. He didn’t read ‘and the day of vengeance of our God, to comfort all who mourn’. To me, this indicates that the day of righteous judgement (or Jesus’ Second Coming’) is still yet to come. Jesus’ first appearance was to bring the good news of Salvation. His Second will be as righteous judge.

A couple of other examples:
In John 5 Jesus said:
"...the very work that the Father has given me to finish, and which I am doing, testifies that the Father has sent me. 37And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me. You have never heard his voice nor seen his form, 38nor does his word dwell in you, for you do not believe the one he sent. 39You diligently study[c] the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, 40yet you refuse to come to me to have life. 43I have come in my Father's name, and you do not accept me...’ 45"But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set. 46If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. 47But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?"

In Matthew 26 when the Disciples tried to stop Jesus being arrested he said:
54...But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?"

In Luke 18 when Jesus was preparing to be crucified he said:
"We are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written by the prophets about the Son of Man will be fulfilled. 32He will be handed over to the Gentiles. They will mock him, insult him, spit on him, flog him and kill him. 33On the third day he will rise again."

And in Luke 22:37
‘what is written about me is reaching its fulfilment’


In Luke 24
And after Jesus was resurrected, he hooked up with some believers along the road to Emmaus:
25He said to them, "How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26Did not the Christ[b] have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?" 27And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.

and what is all this for?

Acts 10:43
“All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name."

But that was Old Testament Law!

Leviticus 18 is a list of sexual laws that were given to the nation of Israel. It states things like:

No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations.
Do not commit adultery.
Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech, for you must not profane the name of your God.
Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable
Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it.
If you defile yourself, the land will vomit you out.
Everyone who does any of these detestable things—such persons must be cut off from their people.

The Israel of the Old Testament was under the administration of Law. They were required to obey God's law and the only way they could receive pardon was by animal sacrifice. The punishment was to be cast out of the nation of Israel.
Luckily, we are now under the administration of Grace. Being cut off has been replaced by forgiveness (but only after repentance)
Eventhough we are lucky enough to be under Grace, church denominations (okay, some sections of the Uniting Church and inevitably the Anglican Church) are taking advantage of this privilege and are cherry picking the above list. They say things have changed. Society has changed.
If some denominations condone one of the points in the above list, they surely have to condone the entire list. If a priest can lie with a man as one lies with a woman in today's churches, why stop there? Why can't he screw an animal behind the alter? Why can't he sleep with his sister or his mother? If society justifies everything on the basis that it is changing, then having sex with animals and close relations will inevitably be condoned.

But has God changed?
Under New Testament Law, has God changed? By nature, no
Under New Testament Law have we changed? No
Under New Testament Law has the dispensation (law) changed? Yes

The Old Testament Law has been fulfilled by Jesus Christ. Jesus still calls us to obey:
'If you love me, you will obey what I command' (John 14:15).
He says in Matthew 5: 17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.'

Jesus Christ's standard is even higher then the Old Testament standard. He claims that looking at another woman with lust is adultery (also in Matthew 5). If Jesus' moral standard is even higher in New Testament Law, how on earth can we expect to get away with condoning anything in Leviticus 18?
Under New Testament law, we are saved by Grace and that salvation is only found in Jesus Christ, who became the sacrifice once and for all. Grace does not give us the license to cherry pick God's moral requirements. We are privileged to be under Grace but we do not have the privilege to water down God's moral standard. Anyone who condones any sexual activity in Leviticus 18 must condone the lot of it.

For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.(Romans 15:4)

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16)

Gillard won't play religion card

Our new Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, has said she does not believe in God and she won't pretend to for the sake of votes.

She will no doubt lose Christian votes.

But which is better:

1.) A Prime Minister running the country that doesn't believe in God or
2.) A Prime Minister running the country that pretends to believe in God

I would prefer a point 3 but if it was a choice between 1 and 2, I would vote for 1.

Rudd went to church every week but apparently he was asked at a football match if he believed in Jesus Christ. His response was 'I am someone who goes to church regularly...'. That's right Kev. A lot of people do just go to church.

Winter Brewing with Coopers Pale Ale

Ingredients:

Coopers Pale Ale
Coopers Brew Enhancer #2
Pride of Ringwood Hop bag
Sofale Yeast

FG 1014 and still dropping
Temperature: don't let it get below 18
19th day in the fermenter.
Patience is a virtue when brewing in winter, but starting to drink it straight from the fermenter due to the need for 'regular' testing.

Giddyup!

Jesus is NOT an All-American hero!

With all the events in the Middle East, a calamity may breakout at any moment. A lot of Right wing Christians in America are reaching for their Bible and getting excited about the imminent death and condemnation of millions. They think they will be yanked out of the doom by Jesus, get handed a box of pop corn and front row tickets as they take their seat in the heavenly colloseum to watch the carnage.

Right wingers are writing books about it and raking in the cash by stoking the fear of bible believing Christians. They are analysing verses out of the Book of Ezekiel, Daniel and Zechariah.
They read Ezekeil 38 and conclude that Russia will invade Israel with their Arab allies.
They read Isaiah 17 and celebrate over the prophesied destruction of Damascus.
Their next stop is Zechariah 8, where Jesus promises to return to Jerusalem and rule. The righters get all excited thinking that all those nasty little Muslims will be wiped out.

When Jesus comes back, I don't think Lincoln, General Lee, Roosevelt, Kennedy, Reagan or any of your All-American heroes will be his right hand men.


Living out these three verses before you reach for your sidearm is a good start:

Matthew 28: 19 All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit'.

Romans 12:20 If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head'

2 Peter 3:9 'The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance'

Do what Jesus told you to do. He will take care of his prophecies in his own time.
Jesus is not an All-American hero.

Is Evolution compatible with Christianity

Ahh...please just indulge me for 8 minutes by watching this Youtube clip. The Indian guy on the left has a good book that I read years ago called 'Can Man live without God'. If you can get your hands on it, give it a read.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPFi8k5IMK0

They probably indulge themselves a little as well but it's always nice to watch faithful and educated Christian blokes coherently and confidently have something to say.

They don't prove that God created the world but just highlight things that I for one need to hear from time to time. Why didn't Q&A get one of these guys on the panel on Monday? Now that would have been interesting.

By the way, there is an Atheist convention in Melbourne this weekend. Tickets are sold out...and only 9% of Australians go to church.

Senator Fielding v's Richard Dawkins on Q&A.

I never usually watch Q&A on the ABC because it has politicians on it. Politicians are invariably incompetent at answering the question. The episode of Q&A on 8 March was discussing the compatibility between 'science' and 'religion'. It made for frustrating and slightly traumatic viewing. The cast was Richard Dawkins (a highly educated atheist), Senator Fielding (a professing Christians, leader of the Family First party and Senator), Julie Bishop, Tony Burke and a couple of others.

This was the ideal opportunity for public figures such as Steven Fielding to give an account of their Christianity on national T.V. He ran away from that opportunity and looked like a fool. It was a shame the ABC put a dittering Senator in the ring with an accomplished scientist.

Fielding condoned the compatibility between 'creationism' and 'evolution'. I assume the term 'evolution' means that humanity evolved from a simple life form, through to the ape stage into the breed of humanity we have today. Christians can not accept evolution. Sure they can accept that the world is billions of years old and God may have used some sort of 'big bang' to get things moving in the universe. But evolution is a dangerous heresy to introduce into our doctrine to appease the scientific community. Why? Because if you remove Genesis from the Bible you have no understanding of the origin of 'sin' in creation. You also have no understanding just how valuable humanity is. God made us in 'his' image. We didn't crawl out of a cess pool. He breathed life into us directly. We were appointed to reign over creation. We were created perfectly. There was a perfect relationship between humanity, creation and God. The Bible does not promote humanity evolving from the animal kingdom.

Humanity fell into sin in Genesis 3 because it rejected and disobeyed God. Humanity and creation was cursed resulting from this rebellion. If Christians remove Genesis, there is no understanding the origins of a cursed world. Our relationship with God was irrevocably broken and the whole point of Jesus' existence on earth was to rectify this. The promise of Jesus was first mentioned in Genesis 3:15. God promised that an offspring of Eve would crush the head of Satan. Genesis is fundamental to an understanding of Jesus Christ. There is no compatibility between Christians and evolution. Genesis does not allow it.

The convenor of Q&A asked Senator Fielding 'where did humans come from'? Fielding replied 'I believe in being created'. Where's God Senator? Be bold Senator! Why didn't you put a name to your creator?

It was confirmed that Pope Benedict stated that evolution and faith can co-exist. If the Pope does not believe that man was created in the image of God, he has fallen into Apostasy. Without the biblical account of Genesis, the concept of sin and redemption is not understood. I might do some research on you Pope in the hope I have to recant my sentiment.

Is Julie Bishop a professing Christian? If she is, all she can muster regarding the Bible is 'it is an all time best seller'.

Steve Fielding went to great lengths to say that his faith is personal. Christ did not call you to have a personal faith Senator! He didn't call you to light your candle and put it under the bed. You are in a position of leadership in this country. You are Christ's ambassador. But all you can come up with to justify your timidity was to say your faith is personal. Whatever you do in your bedroom is personal Senator, not your Christian faith.

Is Tony Burke a Christian? All he could muster was to say 'there was a bloke from a couple of thousand years ago who said to love one another'. How hard is it to say 'Jesus' Tony? Julie Bishop didn't do much better, she said he was a 'great man who tried to do good things'. I hope you're not a professing Christian Julie!
Senator Fielding was asked directly, 'do you believe the Bible as the word of God'? He didn't answer the question.

Ironically, my applause goes to the atheist Richard Dawkins. He summed up the Gospel of Jesus Christ better than any of the Christians on the panel. The first mention of Jesus in the entire 55 minute debacle was at the 30 minute mark...and it came from the Atheist. He said two things of truth:

1. 'All religions are not compatible. They all can't be right.' That's right Mr Dawkins. Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. No one gets to the Father but through him. I got the impression that Steve Fielding wants them to be all compatible.
2. 'Don't you think God could have found a better way to atone for man's sins rather than allowing himself to be brutally punished and put to death on a cross? Is that admirable?' Well done Richard, you gave a better account of Christianity than everyone else. You're closer to the Kingdom than you think. If you take away the account of Genesis, well then it is not 'admirable'. It would be absurd. Jesus was promised in Genesis 3. He came to re-instate mans perfect relationship with God.

Rediscovering Genesis

I have only read Genesis once in my life and even then, I probably did it quickly. I don't think many Christians read Genesis because they are ashamed of it. People have looked at me like I am crazy when I say I believe Genesis is real. The book is made out to be a fairy tale and ridiculed by scientists the world over. Anyway, I still believe it. Besides, the Psalmist in Chapter 14 says 'the fool says in his heart, "There is no God". I believe that too.

Anyway, within half an hour into Genesis, I came across two possibilities that I never considered before. These possibilities (in the whole scheme of sin, repentance, salvation and judgement) aren't important. But it's good to think about unimportant things from time to time:

Did God create more than Adam and Eve?
When Abel got himself perished at the hands of Cain, God drove Cain from the land. Cain was to wander the wilderness, separated from his family line. Cain protested by saying in chapter 4:14 '...I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me'. God responded by saying 'not so' and put a 'mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him.'

That reads like that there are more family lines out there that don't belong of Adam and Eve. Some commentators say that Cain was thinking about the exponential growth of Adam's line and he was worried about running into these future people. But Cain's worry sounds like it was of an immediate nature. Cain went East. Could it be possible that God created people in the region of Asia after he created Adam and Eve? Adam and his descendents would have had to breed like rabbits to fill the world as quick as they did. Granted, Adam was still having kids at 130 and lived to 930, but surely he was running out of lead in his pencil by then!

Further, who would interpret the 'mark'. Already existing intelligent beings would be the obvious answer to me.

Was everyone before Noah a vegetarian?
I hope not. If Adam was still dishing out his seed well into his hundreds, surely he needed to do so with the power of meat. But after the flood, God made a covenant with Noah and said in Genesis 9:2:

'The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the grounds'...you get the point.'
'Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything'.
Was everyone prior to Noah a vegetarian? Abel had flocks and gave the first born to God as an offering. Please, please tell me Adam, Abel and his family were chewing the fat? It would be tough to acknowledge the existence of vegetarians in the Bible.

The foundation of Christ's teachings

I don't normally spend too much time reading creationist literature from creation scientists, because I prefer to believe that God made it happen somehew, but I came across an editorial from a guy called Don Batten http://creation.com/revival-what-is-missing

This is a cut and paste of his main points:

Throughout history, revival occurred with the faithful preaching of righteousness, sin, and judgment. Central to all biblical preaching is sin and judgment. Why? Because the sinner needs to know he is in trouble before he is likely to have any interest in being saved. Jonathan Edwards’ famous sermon was titled, ‘Sinners in the hands of an angry God.’ Wesley, Whitefield, Finney and Moody all emphasized that their listeners had broken God’s Law, were guilty before the Righteous Judge of heaven and earth, and deserving of His wrath. These great revivalists knew that the Good News of God’s forgiveness in Jesus Christ would not make much sense unless people understood the ‘Bad News,’ the full impact of their lost condition in Adam, and would cry out to God for mercy.
In Finney’s day, over 90% of those counseled for salvation persevered. Today it is apparently less than 5%. Why?
In today’s evolutionized world, unlike the world of the revivalists, most no longer believe in Creation and the Fall, as recorded in Genesis. So there is no longer any basis for understanding the meaning of sin, namely rebellion against our Creator. So sin has been variously re-defined—loss of self-esteem, or left-over aggression from our animal ancestors. So, when evangelists try preaching about sin, instead of having people call to God for mercy, they get a confused, even hostile response.
So evangelists have tended to minimize talk of sin and judgment, offering instead happiness here and now, rather than rescue from eternal damnation.

His point on the preaching of happiness in the here and now, rather than being rescued from eternal damnation is a good one. Churches have lost their power, in my opinion, because they ignore the basic tenets of biblical truth. Even Paul recognised what the foundations of Christ's teaching were:

Hebrews 6: 1-3: Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings about Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death,[a] and of faith in God, 2instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment.

Paul knew that among the foundations of Christ's teaching was repentance from sin, resurrection of the dead and eternal judgement. Most of the churches I have been too in my life have ditched these teachings and have placed too much focus on doing good or how to look like Christians in a secular society. Sunday mornings can feel like a gathering of socialists trying to bring equality, acceptance and tolerance into their world. These socialist ideals are important, but they are not the foundation of Christ's teaching and without it, the gospel is not getting preached. You have to go to Church for many Sunday's to hear anything about the Gospel of salvation (sin, repentance and eternal judgment). Without the gospel, we are all damned, no matter now socialistic we are.

Micah v's Preterism

Preterists believe that all Bible prophecy, especially the Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24 , as well as Daniel and Revelation were all fulfilled with the covenantal wrath God poured out on Jerusalem in AD70. Preterists believe that Jesus, along with his kingdom, have already come and the resurrection is a spiritual one.

Dispensationalists (or futurists) believe that the Olivet discourse covers an extended period of time and that most of Revelation is still yet to be fulfilled. Both sides, in their own way, offer good defences of their eschatology.

However, I have observed two things:

1.The Preterists view of all Bible prophecy being fulfilled in the first century relies heavily on the writing of the  priestly Jew Josephus, who was employed by the Roman Empire. He witnessed the fall of Jerusalem and presumably recorded it faithfully. He wasn't inspired by the Spirit, he just wrote what he saw.

2. Dispensationalists do use the Old Testament to back up their eschatology.

Rational Dispensationalists claim Jesus' discourse covered the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD (Matthew 24: 1-35), as well as future events of the last days (Matthew 24: 36-51). Preterists question who would talk like that? Why would Jesus jump forward to a time when his listeners would be well and truly dead. Wouldn't he tell them that verse 36 onwards won't apply to them.

But, I have an observation from Micah 5:1-2. Verse one (which is highlighted in red) apparently talks about the imminent invasion of Judah by Assyria in 701B.C. Verse two (in blue) jumps to Jesus' birth in Bethlehem, seven centuries later:
Micah 5: 1 Marshal your troops, O city of troops, for a siege is laid against us. They will strike Israel's ruler on the cheek with a rod. 2 "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins [c] are from of old, from ancient times. [d] " 3 Therefore Israel will be abandoned until the time when she who is in labor gives birth and the rest of his brothers return to join the Israelites. 4 He will stand and shepherd his flock in the strength of the LORD, in the majesty of the name of the LORD his God. And they will live securely, for then his greatness will reach to the ends of the earth. 5 And he will be their peace.

To the readers of today the time jump is obvious. If one of God's prophets can make the time jump in a discourse, why can't Jesus do the same thing? If you try and be consistent with the preterist view, the people who Micah was talking to would have expected a ruler out of Bethlehem to stop the Assyrians right there and then. Surely, the preterists would be stating that Micah should have told them that their ruler will be struck with a rod, and by the way in 700 years from now, long after you are dead, a ruler will come from Bethlehem. In my mind, when the preterists say that the Olivet Discourse covers one event and one period of time, there is biblical precedence of jumping across times in one discourse.

I think preterists mistakenly treat God like he is linear and his actions reflect this.
I think that dual prophecy exists in the Bible. For example, in the Olivet discourse in Luke 17 Jesus speaks about Jerusalem being trodden down until the time of the Gentiles is fulfilled. If we accept time jumping and the possibility of dual prophecy, there is no reason why Jesus couldn't have been referring to present day Israel and that eventually the Jews would be fully restored in Jerusalem.
Although I haven't put a whole lot of thought into this, it seems to me that the Book of Revelation isn't necessarily the only prophetic book we should be looking to. The Old Testament is packed with prophetic statements that we haven't witnessed yet. For example:
Micah 4: In the last days the mountain of the LORD's temple will be established as chief among the mountains; it will be raised above the hills, and peoples will stream to it...He will judge between many peoples and will settle disputes for strong nations far and wide. They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore.'
 
If Jesus did arrive in 70AD there aint no streaming to his mountain that I can see. I only see Jews and Muslims trading insults on His mountain today. We're still training for war as well. The Old Testament indicates in a number of places that Jesus will physically return to earth to rule.

God is watching!

I came across a sobering statement in the book of Jeremiah today: 'But I have been watching! declares the Lord'
God tells his prophet Jeremiah to let Israel know that he is watching. Watching what? God is getting angered at Israel for doing things like 'burning incense to Baal and following other gods that you have not known, then coming to stand before the Lord in his house.' God is also angered at their acts of stealing, murder, adultery and giving false testimony.
I am not a scholar of Old Testament practices but apparently the act of burning incense is an act of prayer.
So essentially, Israel was praying to Baal and then rocking up to the temple of God. It is abundantly clear that in the Old Testament God does not share power with any false god. Unlike our advanced society, he is not much of a pluralist.
The book of Colossians talks about the Supremacy of Christ. There is none above Him. He is the sole head of the Church. When the supremacy of Christ is compromised within the Church, God is watching.
Up until reading this snippet in Jeremiah today I was wondering why God doesn't protect his church from forces that do not hold Christ and his teaching as supreme. For example, when I see Christian world leaders bend their knee in the Mosques of Allah, Christian denominations holding joint prayer meetings with other religions, secular liberalism asserting itself in the church, churches being run by a cult of personality where the attendees follow the leader rather than Christ and when I see Christian books espousing speculative philosophical theories that people devote more time to than the Word of God, I have tended to think that maybe it's all okay with God. Maybe he doesn't have a real interest at the end of the day about what is being done in his name. Maybe the church should move with the times and embrace social liberalism and inter-religious cooperation.
But I am coming to the realisation that God is not indifferent. God is watching! His anger is rising. He is quick to love, quick to forgive but he is also unrelenting in his disdain for idolatry and hypocrites. All around me I see the church and church leaders compromising on the supremacy of Christ and burning incense (or recognising the deity) of false gods.
But don't tell me you fear God and then go and compromise the supremacy of Christ. Why is Christ supreme? Read my blog called 'Why I need to be saved? or better still, read the rest of Colossians

God, the world says you don't exist

God, I am sure you’re aware that the world thinks there is zero evidence of your existence.
The world thinks that those who believe in your Son, Jesus Christ, are brain-washed, deranged, infantile, weak, hypocritical, arrogant, selfish and self-righteous.
The world wants to plot its own course and leave you out of the scientific equation.
The world claims that your laws are outmoded and based on ancient myth.
The world wants the law of God to be replaced by the laws of science, stabilised by the innate morality of humanity.
The world claims that your followers are part of a supernatural cult that promotes exclusion, discrimination and immoral practices.
The world condemns Christians for sticking their noses into politics, in an attempt to create draconian laws, whilst the embarrassed and enlightened majority look on.
The world, according to science and human wisdom, has pushed you off the throne as the source of instruction and reason.
The world claims your Word is an ancient book of rules written by an inconsequential Middle Eastern tribe.
The world claims that your Word is the root of all evil and has been the source of immense human suffering and depravity.
The world claims that if you did exist in the form of Jesus Christ that you were just a charlatan, or at best a good moral teacher but nothing more.
The world sees the idea of being forgiven and justified by your blood sacrifice as offensive.
The world says that Jesus Christ has no part in the lives of the great majority of people.
The world says that the Apostle Paul was on the whacky-tabbacy on the road to Damascus.
The world says that the book of Revelation is the also the result of the whacky-tabbacy.
According to the world, I am behind the times and I should catch up. Apparently my belief has a statistical chance of being 1: 10 000 right.
Apparently 99% of modern Christians believe in the science of evolution rather that believing the world is here because you breathed it into existence.

Lord, participation in the organised church is at an all time low. People aren't even aware of what is in the Bible and what you have to say. Sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ doesn't seem to have an impact. Even Christians can't agree on the meaning of your Word. They argue about how to translate it, what bits to leave with the culture of generations gone by and what should be relevant today. I am even confused at reading your Word at times. We are divided into Preterists, Partial Preterists, Millenialists, Dispensationists, Catholics, Anglicans, Methodists, Baptists, Texans etc etc. I like to think they are all wrong and that even your foolishness (just a baseless premise of course) makes a mockery of the wise. Your Word is flickering out! When a generation allows your Word to diminish to the point of being snuffed out, do you intervene?

Hebrews 4:12 says For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. This is the case only to the believer it seems. To everyone else, your word has no power and no truth. To most, it is a blunt plastic spoon rather than a sharp double-edged sword. Where does a Christian go from here?. Sure, we can try and live a good example by loving our neighbour and living a life of attempted obedience, but an endless line of non-believers love their neighbour as well and live in obedience to your laws by proxy.
Lord, I am not a happy-clappy and talk endlessly about an imminent Revival. I have seen this Christian cultural expression for a couple of decades now but the world (as well as me) can't relate to it. Can you intervene? I am not talking about your Second Coming, because if that happened countless numbers would be condemned. Can you breath life into your Word, can you convict people of sin? Can you reveal, just a little bit, of your glory to a recalcitrate world?
In John 18 when Judas, a detachment of soldiers and some religious officials came to arrest you and put you on trial, they came with weapons. You asked 'Who is it you want?' They replied 'Jesus of Nazareth'.
'I AM HE' was your answer. They must have seen a glimpse of your authority and glory because they 'drew back and fell to the ground'. I reckon you did that just for kicks. You let your true glory show to a sinful rabble and then resumed your role as the sacrificial lamb.
Lord God, can you not return as judge just yet, but just walk past? I know you are here in your Kingdom in the form of the Holy Spirit in all believers but that doesn't seem to cut it (our fault not yours).
Can you breath life into your Word in this world and make the wise look foolish?
Remind people that you are here, and that you are indeed the one and only risen God and you have a purpose?
I don't want to turn into a happy-clappy but can you make your gospel real, tangible and relatable in a world going to hell on the back of secular enlightenment?
I guess for starters, believers will have to be reminded that you can not dwell with sin. You find sin detestable, rancid and unbearable. I don’t want to call it 'Revival' (how that word makes me nauseous) and run across Canberra with a coloured banner singing Jesus songs. But can you convict the believers of sin, remind them of the power of your Word and the power of your presence? Only then, I guess, the Holy Spirit can move. Can you let out a little 'I AM HE' to the world and bring the wise, educated and enlightened sinners to their knees? Loving our enemies, gifts of healing, prophecy etc...bring it on (but I can do without the happy-clappy bit)

Regards
Rob