Category Archives: Doctrine

Abortion, Bible, Church, Culture, Culture War, Doctrine, Patriotism, Politics, ProLife, US History, West Virginia

Weaponization of Government and Our Response

As I serve on the state board of West Virginians For Life, and as their treasurer, and also as the board alternate representing West Virginia on the National Right To Life Committee (NRLC), each quarter I am asked to compose a short article for the Life Matters newsletter. Below is my most recent submission for that publication. 

There are alarming reports of the weaponization of government against us, including law enforcement and our judicial system. While truly violent protestors had rioted, burned, vandalized, and stolen with apparently little to no arrests or convictions, it’s alarming to consider that the DOJ under the current administration has arrested pro-life people for visiting an abortion facility and praying and singing while there. Worst case scenario: if they were asked to leave and did not, then it is simple trespassing (not a felony), yet these pro-lifers were tried and convicted as being felons, facing years in prison unless a higher court intervenes. In deference to the court of Heaven, what should our response be? Let’s not give a carnal response of “do unto others as they have done to me.” Certainly we ought to exercise our votes to regain normalcy in government, but we also ought to pray for God’s help. In the Book of Acts, chapter 4, the apostles were arrested for simply preaching truth, and they were threatened repeatedly to stop. They declined to stop, and also prayed afterward for boldness. Consider Acts 4:23-32, especially vv. 29-31: “And now, Lord, behold their threatenings: and grant unto thy servants, that with all boldness they may speak thy word, by stretching forth thine hand to heal; and that signs and wonders may be done by the name of thy holy child Jesus. And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness.” Your donated time, talent, and treasure has perhaps never been more important!

Join us: wvforlife.org/membership
Better yet, step up to Rose Society Membership while you’re there!
Already a member? Give here: wvforlife.org/donate

Abortion, Academic Freedom, Bible, Church, Culture, Culture War, Doctrine, Israel, Marriage, Media, Patriotism, Politics, Pro2A, ProLife, Second Amendment, West Virginia

What kind of candidates should believers vote for? 

What kind of candidates should we vote for? 

Capable, God-fearing, trustworthy, and who hate dishonest gain.

The Bible teaches this: “But select capable men from all the people—men who fear God, trustworthy men who hate dishonest gain—and appoint them as officials over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens” (Exodus 18:21).

For a start (for West Virginians), get your free pro-life voter guide for the 2020 General Election at: pac.wvforlife.org/vote

What does it mean to say “I Will Vote My Biblical Values”?

I will vote for the most pro-life candidate, because God hates the shedding of innocent blood
(Proverbs 6:17).

I will vote for the most pro-Israel candidate, because God blesses those who bless Israel and curses those who trifle with Israel
(Genesis 12:3).

I will vote for the most pro-debt-reduction candidate, because the borrower is slave of the lender
(Proverbs 22:7).

I will vote for the most pro-work candidate because God’s word teaches that if an able-bodied man won’t work, then let him not eat
(2 Thessalonians 3:10).

I will vote for the most pro-marriage candidate because God is for marriage as defined in
(Genesis 2:24).

I will vote for the candidate who holds most closely that government’s purpose is to reward good & punish evil
(Romans 13).

I will vote based on God’s Word, as closely as I can
(Exodus 18:21; Acts 6:3; 2 Timothy 3:16).

 

Bible, Church, Doctrine, Ministry, Salvation

Wear the Name of the Lord Jesus!

Water baptism in the name of Jesus clothes a repentant candidate with Christ:

“…for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ” (Galatians 3:27 NIV).

Biblically, the proper formula for Christian water baptism is to baptize in the name of the one who was crucified for us (I Corinthians 1:11-13)—that is in Jesus name, since Jesus is the one who was crucified for us. Biblically, we’re to be baptized in the name of the Son (Matthew 28:19), and the Son’s name is Jesus (Matthew 1:21). Biblically, we’re to be baptized while calling upon Jesus name (See Acts 2:38, Acts 8:16, Acts 10:48, Acts 19:5, and Acts 22:16). Biblically, being baptized in Jesus name is the proper way to obey Matthew 28:19. Speaking of Matthew 28:19, some people are confused regarding what the name of the Father is, and what the name of the Holy Ghost is. But the scriptures give guidance:

What is the name of the Father? Since Jesus came in His Father’s name (John 5:43), and since the Father and Son (Jesus) are one (John 10:30), and since it was prophesied that the Lord’s name is to be one (Zechariah 14:9), and since the Son’s name is Jesus (Matthew 1:21), and since God the Father is glorified when we worship Jesus by bowing to Him and confessing Jesus Christ as Lord (Philippians 2:11), then we should recognize that by calling upon the name of Jesus we have access to God the Father, and that, for those of us alive in the New Covenant, Jesus is the person and name by which God the Father desires to be addressed and accessed.

What is the name of the Holy Ghost? The terms Spirit and Ghost are synonymous. The Bible says, “God is a Spirit” (John 4:24). There is every reason to hold that all the prior points, about the name of the Father, should apply. But there is more. Since there is only one Spirit (Ephesians 4:4), and since there is only one Lord (Ephesians 4:5), and since Jesus is the Lord (Philippians 2:11), and since the Word of the Lord says, “the Lord is that Spirit” (II Corinthians 3:17), and since, while He was describing the Holy Spirit’s arrival to dwell within believers, Jesus Christ said, “I will not leave you comfortless, I will come unto you” (John 14:18), then we should recognize that the Holy Spirit is “Christ in you, the hope of glory” (Colossians 1:27), and that Christ’s redemptive name for all New Covenant believers is Jesus.

Does this surprise? It should not. As believers who have the one Spirit dwelling in us, as long as we abide in the doctrine of Christ, we have both the Father and the Son (II John 1:9). The man Christ Jesus said Himself that the Holy Spirit would be sent in His name (John 14:26). His name is Jesus. The Spirit is sent in Jesus name. No name other than Jesus could possibly be rightly attributed to the Holy Spirit within New Covenant believers. Thus, the Bible says of Jesus name, “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).

“Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.” {37} When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” {38} Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. {39} The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off–for all whom the Lord our God will call” (Acts 2:36-39 NIV).

In the Bible, everyone who was baptized by any of the Lord’s apostles or disciples was baptized in Jesus name (see the Book of Acts and study the epistles).

Have you been baptized in Jesus name? If so, you are clothed with Christ. If not, you need to be baptized in Jesus name as soon as possible!

All United Pentecostal Churches baptize in Jesus name!
To find a UPCI near you, visit www.upci.org

Copyright information: Permission is granted to UPCI churches and/or Jesus-name people for use of this article, provided that credit is given and it is not edited without permission. All other rights reserved. This article previously appeared here.

 

Church, Doctrine, Ministry, Theology

Wisdom from Bishop T.F. Tenney

Bible, Church, Doctrine, Theology

Christian Pastor responds to Mormon doctrine on Baptism for the Dead

This video published by Mormons (below) proposes to defend / explain their doctrine and practice of Baptism for the Dead:

 

This is my reply, as a Christian pastor who holds the Bible as our supreme authority in matters of faith and practice.

First, certainly anyone is free to believe such a thing. I do not oppose anyone’s right to believe this and practice it. I seek to address whether their doctrine is biblically sound, and whether it is therefore something that Christians should buy into. I find it to not be biblically sound.

The Mormon’s doctrine and practice of Baptism for the Dead is a notion quite strange to me. There are several underpinnings worth looking at.

I watched the video and noticed some things while listening to the narrator’s explanation of “proxies.”

Proxies have no authority to represent someone unless the unable person has granted that power to the proxy. To use the examples given in the video:

  • A substitute teacher cannot be a proxy for a regular teacher unless the regular teacher has consented to be temporarily replaced by the substitute, and/or the school / principal / school board has consented and has asked the substitute to stand in.
  • Likewise, a person cannot just show up and claim they have power of attorney. An unable person who wants to be represented needs to have previously signed, granting the power of attorney, or else they cannot be represented in that way.

In contrast to this essential requirement of permission being granted before any proxy can represent someone else… persons who died without choosing to be baptized, do not leave in their wills (nor say aloud before dying) that they designate anyone to represent them as their proxy for being baptized in their place. The reason is clear: if they actually wanted to be baptized, they would have simply gotten baptized themselves. Thus, what permission do the Mormons have for representing dead persons that never gave such permission? Bear in mind they don’t just get baptized for ancestors they personally knew prior to the person having passed. They get baptized for many literally distant ancestors, who died long ago, well before the “proxies” were born, and this is after doing extensive genealogical research.

This weakness regarding permission seems to have led to their effort to address it in the video.  The narrator states, “You may be asking yourself, ‘Isn’t it a little presumptuous for Mormons to perform a baptism for the dead, who may not even want it?'”

Yes, we are asking ourselves that very thing.

In their “reply” to their own posing of the question, they then “beg the question” — which means that they presume something to be true without questioning why (in hopes that you will too). Begging the question means asserting something while making no effort to support it.

They start off using the Bible: “Well, the Bible teaches us that individuals have the right to choose.” That’s accurate, and it’s all well and good. However, after that is when they start begging the question.

“Mormons believe” that the right to choose continues after death. Is that biblical?

The narrator’s next statement is that “Mormons believe” that the right to choose continues after death. Notice he does not say, “The Bible teaches…” but rather that “Mormons believe….”

However, there are actually passages of the Bible giving us reasons to hold that the truth is the opposite of the Mormon position.

The Bible leads us to conclude that a person’s right to choose upwardly (re: toward salvation / God) is limited to their earthly life, as the Scriptures lead us to understand that in the afterlife, unsaved persons cannot negate their anti-salvation choices made during this life, nor can they renegotiate upwardly regarding God / salvation (see verses below). This is not to say that such people cannot experience a change of mind / heart during their resulting punishment, just as the wicked rich man did in the account told by Jesus (Luke 16) of the righteous, poor beggar, named Lazarus, and the wicked rich man, who was unnamed. Jesus told how that the man who had been both wicked and rich during his earthly life had a great change of heart during his suffering/punishment in the afterlife. However, despite that change of heart, the man’s spirit was told by Abraham’s spirit (from a distance) that it was not possible for either the righteous or the wicked to traverse the fixed gulf between them. Mormonism would have us believe that either the gulf is not “fixed” (while it is indeed said to be fixed), or that someone can indeed cross it, which the Lord Jesus (in telling the account) indicates “cannot” happen, i.e. is not possible.

The Scriptures make clear that the judgment known as the “second death” is to be everlasting, eternal — not something that can be shortened or escaped from. Consider these verses:

  • 2 Thessalonians 1:9 – “These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power,”
  • Matthew 25:41 – “Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels;”
  • Hebrews 6:2 – “…of instruction about washings and laying on of hands, and the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment.”
  • Matthew 25:46 – “These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
  • Mark 9:44-48 – “[where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.] If your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life lame, than, having your two feet, to be cast into hell, “If your eye causes you to stumble, throw it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, than, having two eyes, to be cast into hell”
  • John 5:29 – “…and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment.”
  • Daniel 12:2 – “Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt.”
  • Revelation 20:10 – “And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.”

“Mormons believe” that the spirits of the dead not only can hear the Gospel after death, but that they can choose to accept the Gospel after death. Is that biblical?

The narrator then goes on to assert, without any support from the Scriptures, that the spirits of the dead can hear the gospel after death and choose to accept or reject it.

This presumes not only a continued freedom of upward choice after death, but it also presumes that the choices of the unsaved made during their earthly life don’t count, when the Bible indicates they do indeed count, and very much so.

For all the reasons shown above, and a host of others, we reject such a notion.

The Scriptures indicate (for example in Revelation 20) that the wicked dead will be raised up to be judged, and their judgement will be based on their deeds during their earthly life.

Regarding the spirits of the dead hearing the Gospel, the indications of Scripture are that when Jesus was crucified and buried, and His soul went to the Abode of the Dead (aka “Hell”), that He preached unto the spirits of the dead (1 Peter 4:6). However, when in His ascension He emptied out the “Comfort” side of the Abode of the Dead, and “led captivity captive” (Ephesians 4:7-10) taking upwards the souls of the saved to be with Him above, there is no biblical indication that He took with Him a single soul that had died having finally chosen wrongly during their earthly life and having changed their mind in Hell. Rather, it seems clear from Scripture that He took with Him those saved souls who had already finally chosen correctly during their earthly life. To hold otherwise goes against numerous verses of Scripture.

Bible, Church, Doctrine, Finance

In defense of tithing

Ryan French, a fellow Apostolic minister, recently posted a wonderfully helpful article, “How to Hurt Your Pastor,” in which (among other things) he mentioned tithing. As you might imagine, someone started taking pot shots at tithing (in the comments), in obvious opposition. Both he and I responded in the comments, in defense of tithing. As Ryan explained his thoughts (in a reply to a comment) he defended tithing as a practice of faith for believers:

First, Abraham chose to tithe because he recognized that everything was God’s in the first place (Genesis 14:19). This is a common thread throughout the Bible… that God has entrusted us as stewards of his goods (…the earth is the Lord’s and the fulness thereof).

Secondly, When Abraham and Jacob began tithing it was … before the Law of Moses had been instituted. This places tithing firmly in the category of timeless moral law. For example, THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT ADULTERY is Old Testament law but it is timeless and moral and carries over into the New Testament (consider Genesis 28:20-22).

Thirdly, Leviticus 27:30-31 shows that the Israelites could either give 10% in produce or 12% IN CASH. When it came to livestock, a shepherd had to set aside every tenth for God. In other words, if they were going to give actual money God required 2% more than if they were going to give in produce or livestock. Beyond all of that, produce and livestock were considered currency in the same way that cash is considered currency today. People bartered with produce and livestock because it was often all they had.

Fourth, Numbers 18:21 establishes God’s precedent that tithing would be for the work of the ministry. God has always considered spiritual things to be worthy of full-time attention.

Fifth, over half of Jesus’ parables talk about money and yet Jesus never once mentioned the earth-shattering fact that tithing is obsolete. In fact, he did the opposite in Matthew 23:23… he rebukes the Pharisees for neglecting weightier things than tithing but then carefully tells them that they should in fact tithe. Another time, Jesus uses a poor widow giving her last penny to the temple as an object lesson for his disciples. Why didn’t he run to her and say you don’t have to do that anymore? Because the principles of tithes and offerings are timeless and moral in the kingdom of God.

Finally, the early apostolic Church, as far back as history records, understood that tithing is the means by which the Church provides for the work of the ministry. I suppose if we wanted to really be like the early New Testament saints we would need to sell everything and give it to the Church. Such was the custom in their zealousness.

Regarding Ryan’s fourth point (“Numbers 18:21 establishes God’s precedent that tithing would be for the work of the ministry. God has always considered spiritual things to be worthy of full-time attention”) I added:

The Apostle Paul specifically linked New Covenant support for gospel preachers to the “same manner” (the “same way”) the Old Testament priests were provided for, which of course referred to tithing and offerings. This is clear in 1 Corinthians 9, especially take note of vv. 13-14.

KJV: {13} Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar? {14} Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.

NIV: {13} Don’t you know that those who serve in the temple get their food from the temple, and that those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar? {14} In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel.

Notice the KJV wording “Even so…” (we ought to ask “how so?”) and/or the NIV wording “in the same way” (we should ask “the same way as what?”). The answer is clear: tithes and offerings.

The same way that provision was made for priests in the Old Testament is how it is to be done for full-time gospel ministers in the New Testament. Can a minister forego this right and not accept? Certainly, as Paul himself chose to do at some points. However, that does not permanently waive the right for that minister, nor remove or bar the practice for others.

1 Corinthians 9:14 directly links with Numbers 18:21, i.e. the New Testament gospel minister is connected to tithes the same way Old Testament priests were connected to tithes.

More thoughts of mine followed:

The most common errors of those who claim tithing was “Mosaic Law” and “done away with,” involve:

  • mistaking New Testament verses about emergency relief effort giving as a supposed substitute for tithing (a notion which cannot be supported, biblically),
  • and (the above then often leads to such) wrongfully thinking they know what is supposed to happen “instead of tithing” under the New Covenant,
  • and finally, missing/overlooking the significance of New Testament links to Old Testament mentions of tithing, forming a functional biblical model for people of faith.

Here are a few questions for anti-tithe people:

Since you are professed to not be against giving, but rather against basing one’s giving on a set percentage of increase (which is a biblically based model and enables important functions of the believer’s family life, such as budgeting / financial planning), then what biblical model for giving do you appeal to as a substitute for the biblical model of tithing?

Whatever biblical model you claim as a substitute for the biblical model of tithing, are you sure you have not simply mistaken emergency relief effort giving as something else that it was never intended to be?

Is your biblically-based model absent any set percentage, making forecasting and budgeting extremely difficult if not nearly impossible? Or are all percentages acceptable except such that are prominent in Scripture?

Do you accept that any believer is free to choose a percentage-based plan, and then free to choose any percentage of increase they wish as their basis for regular giving? Or are you just “put off” by the 10% figure and/or an old word for “tenth” (tithe, aka 1/10th)?

If you accept that a believer is free to choose a percentage-based plan for their giving, do you accept that the same believer can in faith derive from the Bible a long-standing example of 10% as support for their choice to use that percentage?

Given that preachers / pastors who view tithing as an act of faith then teach it as such (not a bondage or entrapment or burden) why vilify or criticize them for doing do?

A certain anti-tither responded with the following:

You would have tithe more than 10% according to the law. I believe it is 23%. You are debtor to do the whole law you if you are going to tithe that includes the Old Covenant sacrifices.

What follows was my reply:

  1. Many aspects of a faith-based life predate the Mosaic Law. This includes tithing.
  2. The word “tithe” literally means “tenth” as in 10%. One cannot have “one-tenth” magically become 23%. One could possibly owe a “convenience fee” on top of the tithe, or give an additional offering beyond the tithe, but a tithe (a tenth) cannot be anything other than one tenth. This is common sense.
  3. Because biblically-based tithing in based on increase, the frequency does not affect the percent. Tithing once a week versus once a month does not increase the percentage from 10% to 40%, because if the the increase stays the same, so the percentage stays the same. This also is common sense.

Finally, I asked:

What policy do you practice regarding giving? Does your policy have a biblical basis? If so, what is that basis?

Abortion, Church, Culture, Culture War, Doctrine, Politics, ProLife, Theology

Is regulation of abortion “evil,” as some pro-life people claim?

Let’s start with a fair portrayal of an alluring, albeit radical, position taken by some within the pro-life movement. The following real conversation actually happened recently on social media:

A friend posted a reasonable comment about the fact that the US Supreme Court panel in 1973, which handed down the Roe v. Wade opinion (in a 7-2 decision) had several justices who had been appointed by Republican presidents. Underneath his post, came this:

Now, a quick word about why I’m continuing my response here, instead of there, and who I’m trying to convince with this post (hint: it’s not the radical guy arguing with me on my friend’s wall).

First, any comment you make (on social media or anywhere else) that someone else has the power to delete, is one you may well see disappear, because it means you’re playing on someone else’s turf, not your own. The above conversation was under my friend’s SCOTUS post (which means he could delete my replies, though I doubt he would), and it was also under the radical person’s comment, and he’s more likely to delete my comments if either he thinks I’ve trounced his argument or he gets tired of me replying (i.e. continual one-ups in a battle over who has the last word).

Second, in any controversial issue, there will be a bell curve, in which one extreme consists of the few on the right side that agree with you and could never be convinced otherwise, and the other extreme consists of the few on the wrong side that disagree with you and could never be convinced otherwise, and the cherry, so to speak, is the huge group in the middle of the bell curve, who are open to reason/persuasion, and could potentially be convinced either way. The radical guy (arguing in the screenshot above) is clearly beyond the reach of my reasoning. Why do I say this? He’s already found what he thinks is a solid argument, and long before he ever encountered me, he had already made his argument so often that he’s what we might call “doubled down” on it, such that he’s personally vested in its validity. For him to ever hear reason and turn back now, would be, according to his words (not mine), “silly,” and committing a “sin” of adopting a position with those who “do not care” about aborted babies. His mind is already made up, don’t bother him with facts. Can someone turn back? Yes, but it’s rare. A Saul who becomes a Paul is powerful, but very scarce.

Why the radicals are wrong

If you were able to read all the way through his replies, you saw the comparison to the Holocaust against the Jews, and you hopefully felt the weight of the radical argument. You sense the allure of it, yet something does not quite sit right. I hope to help you put your finger on exactly why the argument does not sit right.

Since he already pointed to the Holocaust against the Jews in a comparison to the Abortion Holocaust of pre-born humans, please allow me to argue from that comparison, despite both Holocausts being a nightmare of grim historical reality.

The radical approach above is a straw-man argument because it presupposes that the Allies’ war against the Axis powers—the fight from without, if you will—was the only kind of war that could be waged, and furthermore, in his argument, the radical guy actually claims that was the only kind of fight that was waged! When I read the lunacy of statements such as “Abortion is legal because we do not care, just like the Germans did not care if the Jews were being murdered,” it makes me want to say, “Did you never hear of Dietrich Bonhoeffer? Have you never read of the heroes, some Christian, some Islamic, some German, who risked their lives trying to save what few Jewish lives they could, from within the Nazi system?” It would do the radical guy some good to read/watch Schindler’s List, about Oskar Schindler, an ethnic German businessman, who saved the lives of more than a thousand mostly Polish-Jewish refugees from the Holocaust by employing them in his factories. Far be it from me to point out the history, since it’s only a click away from anyone on social media.

So, imagine with me, if you will, that war can be waged on two fronts simultaneously, one working under the best strategy possible for how to abolish abortion (in WW2 parlance, defeat the Axis powers), i.e. a full frontal assault, but not one devoid of strategy, and another to undermine from within the reality of the existing system, using whatever means, regulation laws, acts to defund, prayer walks, sidewalk vigils, life chains, counseling centers, ad campaigns and social media memes, etc. (in WW2 parlance, subvert and resist the Axis powers). The radical approach claims the latter of those two is evil, because it somehow legitimizes the system, since it’s not the full frontal assault happening from without and because a lot of people are still dying. That’s just wrongheaded.

Just as the radical guy was wrong to pretend that no one in Germany cared, that none under the boot of the Nazis was working to subvert the forces of evil, and wrong to ignore the precious lives their work saved, by focusing his argument solely on the ongoing death around them as proof of their failure, so also the radical argument is simply fallacious to claim that no lives have been saved during the past 43 years of the pro-life movement fighting against the scourge of abortion. How can he ignore the evidence of some 11,000 lives saved because of the ban on partial birth abortions? Who is he getting his information from, the pro-aborts?

There is an old saying that “you only have one chance to make a good first impression.” Well, all those on the pro-life side in the current culture war should be aware that any given legal argument only has one chance for the Supreme Court’s “first glimpse” at the argument. That first glimpse, if the case gets taken up by the court and an opinion handed down, will result in a precedent being set. Contrary to what some people think, the worldview of a Supreme Court justice matters! Put simply, we need to have a pro-life Supreme Court empaneled before we have a case to abolish abortion come before them, or the case will just see the effort overturned.

Contrary to the radical’s argument, we are winning.

When I told the radical we are winning the culture war, that we’re succeeding in changing the hearts and minds of society, he expressed a state of denial and responded saying that is “so so not true.” Again, the facts contradict his argument. Just Google “millennials are more likely to be prolife” and you will get this:

Millennials increasingly oppose abortion, even if they don’t identify as …

www.washingtontimes.com/news/…/millennials-increasingly-oppose-abortion-even-if-…
Jun 30, 2016 – The survey found 53 percent of millennials believe abortion should be … to 48 percent who said they were more likely to identify as “pro–choice.

Millennials’ abortion views trend pro-life despite self-identity, research …

www.washingtontimes.com/news/…/millennials–abortion-views-trend-pro–life-despite-…
Jun 30, 2016 – Majority of millennials support tougher abortion restrictions, but … with 48 percent who said they were more likely to identify as pro–choice.

Why Are Millennials More Pro-Life Than Parents? – The Daily Signal

dailysignal.com/2016/03/04/why-millennials-lean-pro–life/
Mar 4, 2016 – Millennials lean more pro–life than the generation preceding them because of advances in medical technology and science, leaders in …

Surveys Show Young People More Pro-Life Than Ever Before as …

www.lifenews.com/…/surveys-show-young-people-more–pro–life-than-ever-before-as…
Jul 11, 2016 – … People More Pro–Life Than Ever Before as Millennials Oppose Abortion. … are less likely than their older counterparts to identify as “pro–life.

Millennials Across the United States are More Likely to Identify as Pro …

www.frcblog.com/…/millennials-across-united-states-are-more–likely-identify-pro–life…
Feb 8, 2016 – The study shows the decline is nearly equal in both the most pro–life and pro–choice states. The decline in the least pro–life states: Vermont …

Millennials across the United States are more likely to identify as pro …

standamerica.us/millennials-across-the-united-states-are-more–likely-to-identify-as-pro…
Jan 12, 2016 – Millennials across the United States are more likely to identify as … The only most pro–life state on the list to see a rise in abortions is Louisiana.

Millennials: The generation most likely to oppose abortion – Red Alert …

redalertpolitics.com/2016/01/14/millennials-generation-likely-oppose-abortion/
Jan 14, 2016 – Although Americans are split down the middle on whether they identify as pro–life or pro–choice, abortion is viewed as less acceptable than it …

Survey: Millennials oppose abortion, yet reject pro-life title – Red Alert …

redalertpolitics.com/2016/…/survey-millennials-oppose-abortion-yet-reject-pro–life-tit…

Jul 1, 2016 – Survey: Millennials oppose abortion, yet reject pro–life title … 48 percent of millennials said they were more likely to identify as “pro–choice.”

So, while I declined to try to battle for the last word in a futile argument with a radical, let me conclude with the last comment I made before breaking off with him:

It will take a lot of time and hard work to win over the culture by changing hearts and minds. We have the truth and all the science on our side. We’re winning. We’re on the same side. If we can avoid maligning each other, we will see victory.

Join me as part of the Pro-Life Generation that will see abortion ended within our lifetime. We’re in this for the long haul. We’re in this to save as many lives as we can along the way. If regulation spares even one life, it will have been wise and right. It has spared many lives. The thousands of babies who have been spared from death, even during the sad reign of “Planned Parenthood” funding and “Roe v Wade” opinions, declare that we are on the side of righteousness.

Abortion, Bible, Culture, Culture War, Doctrine, Politics, ProLife, Theology

Freedom of choice, but not without restrictions

Freedom-to-Choose-Pastor-Doug-Joseph

Bible, Church, Doctrine, Marriage, Ministry, Theology

Tithing: 5 Key Answers | Interview with IBC Perspectives Magazine

Read more helpful content at IBC Perspectives Magazine.

IBC: Why is it so important for Apostolic Christians to tithe?

DJ: The Bible is clear that believers are to dedicate every aspect of their lives to the Lord. Dedicating all except the financial aspect is not all; it’s excluding something. While Christians disagree on what submission in this aspect may look like, the most common error by those who are against tithing is to mistake New Testament passages about “Emergency Relief Effort” type giving as supposedly being how all giving should be done by Christians, yet that type of giving is but one layer in a biblically modeled approach. One cannot ignore tithing and have a truly complete biblically modeled approach.

IBC: What happens if a Christian fails to tithe? Are they lost?

DJ: To presume to declare all such people as either saved or lost is to place oneself in the Lord’s place as judge. We can envision situations in which a believer knows better and willfully disobeys, and in which they don’t know better and are not willfully disobeying. The default position of fallen humanity is lost and cursed. If a believer is himself redeemed, yet he allows an existing curse to abide on his personal finances, might God allow that level of granularity? Save their soul even while their financial life is still cursed? He may well allow it in some and disallow it in others. He’s the Lord who knows the heart and judges rightly.

IBC: Should we tithe on our gross income or net income? Why?

DJ: The biblical answer, which is that tithing is to give 1/10 of all my “increase,” leads to a lot of sticky questions that various believers approach differently. In addition to gross v. net, what about inheritances, insurance settlements, birthday and anniversary gifts, or a litany of other windfalls? Consider Luke 6:38. Generally, the more I include as realized increase, the more room I grant in the “bucket” that God uses when causing future increase to come. Based on Romans 14, I grant fellow believers liberty in how they decide such matters, but I personally tithe on my gross. God has blessed us for it. In our assembly, saints tithe on their home garden’s produce. Our family enjoys every bite. Bottom line: tithing is to be based on all “increase.”

IBC: Offerings are given in addition to the tithe. What should a faithful Christian consider giving for offerings?

DJ: Since the needs vary, the amount or percentage could also vary. The New Testament indicates saints were called upon for longterm sacrificial giving due to needs as a result of emergencies, such as fellow believers starving in another region due to famine. Yet how much is too much? Each believer is free to make up their own mind on their gift (2 Corinthians 9:7). Both willingness and abundance are prerequisites for acceptance of offerings (2 Corinthians 8:12). One should avoid going into debt to give to other believers’ needs. A believer should not reduce himself to being in need while trying to meet another believer’s need.

IBC: How has tithing blessed you?

DJ: From my youth up I have always been as faithful as possible regarding tithing. God has honored His promise and has blessed me and my family abundantly. I am a genuine “testimonial” advertisement for the success that comes when adhering to a biblical model from God’s word for submitting the financial aspect of my life to Him.

Bible, Church, Culture, Culture War, Doctrine, Marriage, Politics, Prayer, Theology

A Pastor’s Statement Regarding Kim Davis

Kim Davis has done an admirable job of executing the portion of her job she could do, and respectfully declining on the part she cannot do, due to the legal chaos of the moment. The flawed and lawless decision of the SCOTUS in June has caused chaos. Between that lawless ruling, and the lawless command of the Kentucky governor to the state’s county clerks, and the lawless command of federal judge Bunning directly to Kim, she is between a rock and a hard place, yet she has taken a principled stand that is to be commended.

The Kentucky laws she is sworn to uphold have not been changed, and she is still upholding them. It would require a legislative response to the SCOTUS ruling to revise any Kentucky laws.

Furthermore, of the Kentucky laws that apply to clerks regarding marriage licenses, none of them pronounce any penalty for refusing to give out a license, but they do provide a misdemeanor penalty for giving a license to a couple who may not, per Kentucky law, constitute a marriage, and that includes a misdemeanor penalty for giving a license to partners of the same sex. Since the Kentucky legislature has not revised those codes, and no revisions or new laws by the Kentucky General Assembly have been signed into law by the Kentucky governor, it is simply too early in the process for same-sex couples to be demanding any licenses there, and it is wrong (see below) for either the governor or the judge to command such, given the current situation.

The state governor is sworn to uphold Kentucky law, which directs him (not just in some ruling, but in written, duly legislated and signed law — see the KY state Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or KY RFRA) to seek out a method of enacting the government’s goals in a way that is “least restrictive” of Kim Davis’ religious freedom. Ordering her to violate existing Kentucky laws and at the same time ordering her to violate her conscience, is not the least restrictive means to enact what he is presenting as a governmental goal.

Similarly, the federal judge is bound to abide by federal law, which requires him (not just in some ruling, but in written, duly legislated and signed law — see the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or federal RFRA) to seek out a method of enacting the government’s goals in a way that is “least restrictive” of Kim Davis’ religious freedom. Ordering her to violate existing Kentucky laws and at the same time ordering her to violate her conscience, is not the least restrictive means to enact what he is presenting as a governmental goal. Jailing her is certainly not the least restrictive way.

Given the comparative ease of simply revising the marriage licenses by removing all clerks’ names from them, the accommodation she requested is quite reasonable, and both the governor and the judge violated existing laws in their actions and inactions. Since both were willing to abide by her being wrongfully incarcerated rather than accommodating her, I advocate for them to be impeached. I certainly urge protest over their violations against Kim Davis. In spite of calling for their impeachment, I have been fervently praying for them, and will continue. If you are not praying for them, you should be.

Ultimately, a pastor’s advice is of most value to fellow believers. Regarding believers, as per Romans 14, we are not to judge or condemn another believer regarding matters of conscience, even if, or rather especially when, his or her conviction of conscience differs from your own. The whole point of religious freedom is that not everyone’s religious convictions will match with yours, and we need to allow other believers, who may have stricter views than ours, to hold those views. That said, I don’t disagree with Sister Kim Davis on this. Even if I disagreed, I would still support her 100%.  Even if you don’t agree with her views and position, I implore you to study Romans 14, and grant her the liberty to have a conviction you don’t share. Don’t bash her on social media. Support and pray for her, as well as praying for her state, her governor, her legislature, the judge, and the SCOTUS whose ruling caused the chaos we’re all enduring.