Evangelism Should Emphasize "Repentance" Again

A well-known evangelist, Ray Comfort, estimates that 80-90%, conservatively, of decisions for Christ in modern evangelism will thereafter lose their witness and not even attend church consistently.  He cites a detailed study of the 294,000 who “got saved” in a one-year crusade effort by a major denomination, Harvest, in 1991. They had 11,500 churches keeping close records.  (PS: Evangelism sweeps don't usually do this).  Only 14,000 of the 294,000 still attended church, only a couple years later. That’s a 95% loss rate.

He also studied the works of famous evangelists of the past—such as Wesley, Whitfield, Moody, Spurgeon, and Finney. Along with New Testament evangelists, Paul, Peter, Steven, and Timothy.  Their writings and sermon notes suggested a much higher number of people hanging on to their conversion.  Why is this loss rate gone stratospheric, he wondered?  One of the things he noticed was that in those days, the preaching by these great men would begin with how people have broken God’s Laws.  Then, after that was covered in the sermon, the Good News was taught. This principle of sermon order has faded away, particularly starting in the early 1900s.  Nowadays, preachers consider that the “You Have Broken the Law" sermon starter is just too negative, and have shied away from it.  Modern evangelistic theory (taught in Christian colleges) assumes that most people feel they are not worthy to be with God, so we have to emphasize God’s grace and love right from the start, to make them feel wanted, then explaining what Christ did on our behalf. The Prodigal Son (Luke 15) was the classic example of a good sermon, as they teach how the father accepted his son, though he wasted the inheritance, and still smelled of pigs.   

Mr.Comfort came to the conclusion that the surveys mentioned above suggested the old ways were better.  What's more important, Scriptures seem to provide proof of his idea.  Psalm 19:7 says, in part:

The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul

Well, converting the soul is what we want in evangelism, right?  The Word lays it out plainly.  You present the Law.

Mr. Comfort gives us a parable.  Suppose you’re walking around, and someone pops up and says, “I’ve got good news for you!  Someone paid a $2500 fine on your behalf!”  Your reaction might be “What are you talking about?  That doesn’t make sense; I can’t think of what I did wrong, nor has anybody told me thus.”  They are not exactly in a receptive mood, or grateful, right?  The person would be offended, actually--before they got around to reaching out for the money.  BUT what if the following actually happened:  This person was clocked doing 55 mph in an area set aside for a blind children’s school nearby.  There were 10 clear warning signs stating that the speed limit was 15 mph.  What he did was extremely dangerous, negligent, and reckless, whether he knew about it or not, and a $2500 fine was appropriate and it was the law.  So this person was caught, and in court his ignorance of the law was brushed aside (that would never bring back the life of a child killed).  He was told all the details of his illegality, and then told to pay the fine, and with agony he wondered whether he would have the money, how stupid he was to do that, how much his family would sacrifice their lifestyle—or even how he would tell them—when suddenly someone he didn’t even know stepped forward and paid it for him.  Now his reaction would be a definition of gratitude, right?  He might even want to make friends with this stranger, to see what motivated him to give so much so graciously. 

As you can clearly see by the two parables, the second example--explaining what he did wrong, the Law he broke, with proper acceptance of that news, THEN giving him the Good News of One who has paid his debt, generates a much more positive response.  Well, that’s the principle they formerly used in preaching.  On the other hand, the other approach is what we have a great deal more of now.  Most people, hearing this more-recent approach, are offended—they don’t think they are bad sinners. (Which means they haven’t been taught about God, how He is perfect, and hates sin.) If I talk "grace-only" with a prospect, I pretty much can’t get away from insinuating that they have seriously broken the law, when they have usually deceived themselves into thinking they don’t think they have—and they resent our suggestion—and our indirectness. Or, they consider the idea that they need salvation foolish.  As Scripture says in I Corinthians 1:18:

…the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing

Anyone “saved” by this method is more by emotionalism, since there is confusion about why they need to be saved and what the Good News really is—but in the cold light of the days following, this emotionalism cools off to rejection more often than not.  Which is where the 80-90% comes in.

Thus I need, in my preaching evangelism, to take the time to speak insightfully of the Ten Commandments and its violation in thought as well as deed, and then to also cover Jesus’ commandments in the Gospels—i.e., to show the prospect that he has truly offended a just God—then he hopefully becomes, as James says in 2:9: Convicted of the law, as a transgressor; then the Good News of Christ’s paying our debt will not be offensive or foolish…it will be the power of God unto salvation. 

Let’s look at each function of presenting God’s Law. We’ll start with Romans 3:19:

Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. 

Thus, one function of it is (1) to stop the mouth.  We don’t need to hear much of the prospect’s wisdom, justifying himself and saying, “there are plenty of people worse than me.” (He’s either deceived or just putting you off, really). We are the ones bearing the wonderful gift of good news, and need an opportunity to speak.  

Secondly, Romans 3:20 says this:

by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

The prospect needs to know the knowledge of sin, since self-defense and self-deception are rampant today.  We cannot assume that his sin is in the forefront (or even in the back) of his memory.  I John 3:4 says:   sin is the transgression of the law.  It would seem obvious that a person needs to know the law intimately in order to know if he has transgressed it, or has sinned.  Romans 7:7 declares this more forcefully:  I would not have known sin except through the law. 

Thirdly, in Galatians 3:24, the Law is not only to build our knowledge of sin, but, very importantly….

the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ. 

What this means, is, the Law doesn’t really help us in reconciliation with God…it shows us that we are helpless.  It doesn’t justify us, it just leaves us guilty at the judgment seat. But with the Law, when we see our sin, as God sees it, we see how we have offended God, and if hell is even brought up (which it almost never is), we are, deservedly, destined for hell.  Then we seek Him for some method of righteousness and deliverance.  Christ is that key, as a good evangelist will point the way.

When modern evangelism abandoned the "old" principle of discussing the Law and how Christ saves us from wrath, it needed to seek another reason to attract us to Christ. So they invented the term “life enhancement.”  Following Christ will benefit us.  We will have peace, love, joy, fulfillment, and lasting happiness. At this point, Mr. Comfort provides another useful allegory: 

Two men are sitting in a plane.  The first is given a parachute, (the only one receiving the offer), and told that it will “improve his flight.”  He is skeptical and even thinking the flight attendant is wacko, as he knows that airlines never reveal any doubt about "good times are ahead," but he puts it on—just as a trial.  But it weighs his shoulders, and gives him difficulty in sitting upright.  But he perseveres.  After a while, though, he notices that other passengers are laughing at him due to his unusual clothing accessory.  Feeling humiliated, he can’t stand it anymore, and he throws the parachute to the floor.  Disillusionment and bitterness fill his heart, because as far as he was concerned, he was told an outright lie. 

The second man was given a parachute, BUT he was told a different reason, in alarming detail:  at any moment, without warning, a faulty flight could mean he would be jumping 25,000 feet off the plane. He takes it to heart: He doesn’t notice the discomfort of the parachute, because his mind is consumed with the thought of what would happen to him if he had to jump without it.  He develops a deep-rooted peace in his heart knowing that he shall escape a sure death no matter what happens.  He can deal with other passengers’ mockery—they need to do what he did.  He might even engage them in intense conversation about their need for this safety device. 

You can see what we’re saying.  Under modern evangelism, this man-centered “improvement” approach is a guaranteed failure.  People will take on Christ as an experiment to see whether their life does improve.  But they get what the Scripture promises to the saved, at some points in their lives--temptation, tribulation, and persecution.  They are humiliated by others, disillusioned about not seeing a rosy path develop for them. They take off the Lord Jesus, and are rightly embittered. They are now inoculated against evangelism in the future, and their latter end is worse than the first. Modern evangelism has promised them what God has not promised.  The opposite of their expectation occurs.  After all, God has every right to test us to see if we can really endure.  Modern evangelism does not ask a crucial question:  Are we able to drink of the cup that Jesus drank of?   

We should take the second parachute approach, boldly telling every man, as Hebrews 9:27 says:

it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment

He must understand the horrific consequences of breaking the Law. He must be told to escape the wrath which is to come, when God judges the earth in righteousness. The issue is not one of happiness, but of righteousness.  Then he will flee to Christ, and experience true peace and joy—the fruits of salvation.  But don’t speak of peace and joy as a “draw card” for salvation, or sinners will respond with impure motives, lacking repentance.  The man correctly taught will have much more motivation to endure the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.  When bad times come, he doesn’t throw off Christ—because his reason for taking on Christ is not for rosy paths, but to save him from future wrath.  He has been re-taught to ignore man’s reasoning.  If anything, trials will drive the true believer closer to the Savior—life will be that much better in heaven, and he will be looking more for heaven when life on earth gets miserable.

Mr. Comfort then told of an evangelistic crusade he preached in Australia.  He preached of the Law, Hell, and wrath.  He told of how few people came forward, and how the atmosphere felt tense. He felt the usual disappointment in people’s deafness.  Perhaps he thought of Noah, “a just man, perfect in his generations..walked with God” (Gen. 6:9), who despite being “a preacher of righteousness” (II Peter 2:5), never was able to save a single soul outside his family.  The Spirit lifted him up, told him to simply carry on. Mr. Comfort confessed that this lack of results wore him down, and had pulled him, at one time period, unwittingly to preaching a man-centered Gospel—to get happier results. For that time he got lots of results—that was nice.  The original numbers of people “saved” are higher that way, and there is less tension.  People are happy to have Jesus take a turn at getting them out of the mess they’ve made of their lives. But--they are not clean from the wrath to come because we don’t tell them of the wrath to come.  That was a glaring omission in his message. In the end, people should be asking what David, the Prodigal Son, and Joseph asked:  How could they sin against God? After all, He is also a God of wrath, and we can’t just ignore that—it’s one of His personality traits.  Real repentance is understanding that the great offense here is against God, not just “horizontal” repentance against your fellow man. Mr. Comfort calls this “horizontal only” approach “superficial and experimental.”  The prospect should be seeking something called “godly sorrow” to obtain true repentance, an important element in salvation.  As II Corinthians 7:10 says: …godly sorrow produces repentance.  In evangelism nowadays, we are missing discussing sin against God.  

We have preached the cure without telling them of the disease.    

AB Earle, who had 150,000 converts to his ministry in the mid-1800s, made the following quote:

I have found by long experience that the severest threatenings of the Law of God has a prominent place in leading men to Christ.  They must see themselves lost before they will cry for mercy; they will not escape danger until they see it. 

Mr. Comfort has noticed that there are many people who have been “saved” several times, yet their lives don’t show change. They’re still fornicating, still blaspheming, and so on. What they’re likely doing is:  Using the grace of God for an occasion of the flesh. They sin, they might ask God to forgive them, they move on. They don’t esteem the sacrifice and don’t understand how great the sin.  It means nothing to them to trample the blood of Christ underfoot. The problem is: They’ve never been convinced of the disease that they might appropriate the cure. 

When you study the Word, you find that Biblical evangelism is always Law to the proud and grace to the humble.  Never do you see Jesus giving the gospel to proud, arrogant, self-righteous people.  With the Law, He breaks the hard heart and with the Gospel, He heals the broken heart.  God resists the proud and gives grace to the humble. The proud and highly esteemed are an abomination to God (Luke 16:15).  Note who gets the good tidings in Isaiah 61:1.  The poor, the brokenhearted and the captives are those who are there spiritually:

“The Spirit of the Lord God is upon Me, Because the Lord has anointed Me To preach good tidings to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted,To proclaim liberty to the captives, And the opening of the prison to those who are bound

Only the sick can appropriate a cure. In Luke 10:25-37, after being plainly asked "what shall I do to inherit eternal life?", Jesus gave the lawyer Law.  Why?  Because he was proud.  Note v. 29 for that in part of the story below:

And behold, a certain lawyer stood up and tested Him, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” ²⁶ He said to him, “What is written in the law? What is your reading of it?” ²⁷ So he answered and said, “ ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind,’ and ‘your neighbor as yourself.’” ²⁸ And He said to him, “You have answered rightly; do this and you will live.” ²⁹ But he, wanting to justify himself, said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”  ³⁰ Then Jesus answered and said: “A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves…(the rest of the story is of the Good Samaritan).

Jesus knew this Jewish lawyer didn’t like Samaritans.  Then the Master Debater came to the climaxing point:

³⁶ So which of these three do you think was neighbor to him who fell among the thieves?” ³⁷ And he said, “He who showed mercy on him.” Then Jesus said to him, “Go and do likewise.”

The lawyer had no response—he could see his own lack of love, compared to this generous Samaritan.  He could see that he was a Commandment-breaker.  The Law has done its job again—stopped his mouth, maybe convinced him of sin. 

Note that a similar event happens when the rich young ruler visits Jesus.  We read of it in Luke 18:18-23:

Now a certain ruler asked Him, saying, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” ¹⁹ So Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. ²⁰ You know the commandments: ‘Do not commit adultery,’ ‘Do not murder,’ ‘Do not steal,’ ‘Do not bear false witness,’ ‘Honor your father and your mother.’ ” ²¹ And he said, “All these things I have kept from my youth.” ²² So when Jesus heard these things, He said to him, “You still lack one thing. Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.”²³ But when he heard this, he became very sorrowful, for he was very rich.

Again, Jesus did not begin with the Gospel to this person. (Today, as soon as he asks, “what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” we would engage him in a salvation prayer).  But Jesus sees a proud person underneath (v. 21), who was not ready for the Gospel.  So in verse 20 the young ruler gets the Law—the “horizontal” part-- and is still convinced that he has never sinned (an advantage that only Jesus can claim, really).  Then Jesus slyly points out his lack of the first commandment (Thou shall have no other gods before me) by showing him that his real god is his money.  Once again, no argument. His mouth was stopped.

In contrast, we see Nicodemus, in John 3.  While a leader of the Jews, he was humble of heart, acknowledging the deity of Jesus (verse 2).  He receives the Gospel, and perhaps the greatest verse in His Word, John 3:16. 

Consider also Nathanael, in John 1:47-51.  In him was no deceit.  Since that trait is a tool of the proud, he does not have that negative quality.  Plus, he acknowledged the deity of Christ (v. 49).  Jesus gives him the honor of prophesying about Himself and His future coming.  Part of His glorious good news. This kinder approach goes for the Jews who gathered on the day of Pentecost, in Acts 2.  These were devout (a word which denotes humility) men, v. 5.  What did Peter preach to them?  Not the Law, but the Gospel.  (But he doesn’t hesitate to lay blame on them for His crucifixion, v. 36). 

Think of two verses to the great hymn, “At Calvary:”   Years I spent in vanity and pride, Caring not my Lord was crucified, Knowing not it was for me He died  On Calvary.
By God’s Word at last my sin I learned; then I trembled at the law I’d spurned Till my guilty soul imploring turned  To Calvary. May God bless you as you search for His ways of presenting His precious Words to the lost in your environment.  In the light of our first few paragraphs, remember the saying:  “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.”  There is a lot of insanity in evangelism these days. Acknowledgement:  Ray Comfort, “Hell’s Best Kept Secret,"   audio and book from Livingwaters.com.

The "Emerging Church" Has Some Real Problems

I’ve been reading an excellent book by Thomas Horn (Blood on the Altar: The Coming War Between Christian vs. Christian). I sought further help on one of his subjects, the Emerging Church, online. So I internetted an interview between two giants in the faith:  John MacArthur (Author of 150 books, pastor, radio preacher, president of Master’s Seminary in Los Angeles) and Phil Johnson (Retired U.C.-Berkley law professor, father of the “intelligent design movement.”) They’re both in their 70's now, but their hands are on the pulse of the church—and they’re very, very concerned about the church’s faithfulness to Scripture. I thought I would focus on their concern and highlight part of their interview here.

One of the biggest threats to God's church is, would you believe, a church movement called the “Emerging Church.” So let’s start by defining it. Wikipedia says: they are post-Protestant, post-evangelical, post-liberal, post-conservative, and post-charismatic. Further, the movement hates preaching; they believe instead on “conversation” with people. This is to emphasize its developing and decentralized nature, its vast range of standpoints, and its commitment to dialogue. VERY important note: There is no central doctrine. What those involved DO mostly agree on is their disillusionment with the institutional church--and they support the deconstruction of modern Christian worship. They believe, instead, that there are radically diverse perspectives within Christianity. They say they are creating a “safe” environment for those with opinions ordinarily rejected by modern conservative evangelism. They believe that non-critical interfaith dialogue is preferred over "dogmatically-driven" evangelism. The movement “went public” in November 2004, when they were spotlighted in an article in Christianity Today. (I'm not saying Christianity Today likes their stance). But they’ve been around since at least 1996.

The second way to get to know how the Emerging Church is turning fundamentals on their ear is by a few relevant quotes from their founding father, Brian McLaren. In a separate interview, after he "mistakenly" spoke of God in the male gender, he had this to confess: “This is as good a place as any to apologize for my use of masculine pronouns for God…I avoid (their) use because they can give the false impression…that the Christian God is a male deity.” On the subject of the atonement, Jesus’ sacrifice for us, he calls it a “violent view,” because it presents God as the “greatest existential threat to humanity.” On the return of Christ, a reader from Sweden asked: “If Jesus isn’t coming back…what about judgment or the resurrection?” His answer was psychobabble, but you can tell he's giving it a thumbs-down: “Jesus does say ‘I will come again.’…but I think it’s a mistake to assume that when he says those things, he means what we mean…with all our dispensationalist, premillennialist…or whatever categories. The hyperbolic imagery of the New Testament, moon turning to blood..etc. is political language, signaling the fall of powerful political luminaries. Also…Jesus didn’t come just to evacuate us from earth to a future heaven but to show us how to live and make this world more and more beautiful by following Jesus’ example which would eventually lead to God’s “kingdom come on earth.”

You can see the attack on foundational Scripture there.

Another leader, Rob Bell, also attacks fundamental doctrine: he doesn’t believe Scripture was inerrant when he mentions his greatest discovery—“the Bible as a human product.” He also denied the reality of hell and promoted universalism (its definition: yay, everyone gets saved!) in his book Love Wins.**(see note below). In summarizing the movement’s view, he says “This is not just the same old message with new methods. We’re rediscovering Christianity as an Eastern religion…” Mr. McLaren agrees; he believes in inclusivism—that other religions lead to salvation. For instance, he does not think we should convert Buddhists to Christianity; we should make “Buddhists followers of Jesus.” (Buddhism is usually atheistic, so a “Buddhist Christian” is an oxymoron. Acts 4:12 doesn’t apply any more, I guess.)

Now that we’ve read a bit of this strange group, let’s let John MacArthur tell what he thinks. He’s smarter than me anyway.  He first distinguishes the emerging church movement from Modernism. Modernism was a product of the Enlightenment during the Renaissance in which they made human reason, not Scripture, the determinant of ethics.  He says “out of that came the worship of the human mind, and (in effect,they were saying), the mind trumps God.” The Emerging Church, on the other hand, is post-modernism…In both cases, they assault Scripture. (This movement) is a denial of the clarity of Scripture....(supposedly) we can’t really know what the Bible says. Whether it’s about sin or virtue...they don’t like rules, so their ‘out’ is…(they say) “Well, it (Scripture) is not clear.” This is just another way to set the Bible aside.”

Scripture claims to be clear, however, and God holds us responsible: ”A wayfaring man though he be a fool need not err.” (Isaiah 35:8). Dr. MacArthur also charges their leaders that “the reason they deny Scripture (clarity is because) men loved darkness rather than light (John 3:19). The light is there, they hate the light, they run from the light. The issue is not that Scripture is not clear, it is crystal clear.” Dr. MacArthur charged them with running from the light because he believes they’re heretical—which he says later on in the interview.

I would like to take the topic of homosexuality to get a thorough example of their approach. I’m sure you know (unless your head is in the sand) that the homosexual agenda is that we should all tolerate, all agree with them, not finding anything morally wrong. Scripture, however, won’t let us do that. It’s condemned in Leviticus 18:22, where God says to men:

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.

As Romans 1 points out, it is among the worst deviations that men come down to, after God “gave them up” in their insistence to defy Him.

Scripture is crystal clear on this subject, is it not? Not according to Emerging Church leader Mr. MacLaren who says: “Many of us don’t know what we should think about homosexuality. We’ve heard all sides but no position has yet won our confidence…that alienates us from both the liberals and conservatives who seem to know exactly what we should think…the biblical arguments are nuanced and multilayered, and the pastoral ramifications are staggeringly complex.” The phrase that sticks in my craw--"no position has yet won our confidence." Our judgment trumps God, evidently.

But Dr. MacArthur insists that the truth is clear; it’s bad for the practicing homosexual, but it’s still the truth. He says, “the truth is what I will defend. It’s not personal. I’m not mad at people. I’m not trying to protect my own little space. That doesn’t make me popular in all circles, it creates just the opposite.” He maintains that it’s impossible for Christians to agree with the latest world's view: “there is no possible accommodation …Christianity would have to be reinvented to accommodate itself to any pattern of (worldly) culture thinking.”

But Brian McLaren, a founding father of the Emerging movement doesn’t believe MacArthur has good motives. He was asked again where he stands on the homosexuality issue in Leadership Journal in January 2006 (Leadership Journal is also produced by Christianity Today). His answer was anything but crystal, since he switched the subject to attacking motives of the questioners instead. He first accuses conservative Christians of, quote, “wanting to be sure that we conform to what I call “radio-orthodoxy,”(a slam on radio preacher MacArthur and others), i.e. the religio-political priorities mandated by many big-name religious broadcasters.” After spreading this bit of slander, he says “I hesitate in answering the homosexual question…there is more to answering a question than being right or even honest…we must understand the question beneath the question…we want to be sure our answers are appropriate to the need of the moment…We fear that the whole issue has been manipulated…by political parties…whatever we say gets sucked into a vortex of politicized culture-wars rhetoric...  I know what you guys' motives are, and I condemn them." (If their motives are to defend Scripture, that's reprehensible, I guess.  He suspects our motives in speaking against homoseuals are political, stir-up-the-crowd stuff.  There is a warning to Christians here, too: Pay less attention to depending on political parties to maintain Christianity. He has a paranoia about that, some of it justified).

Really, a big question he touched on is, how do you evangelize the homosexual? They hate the church, feeling condemned if they just enter a conservative one. So they never attend. They avoid us; if we approach them, they may push us away, since we're already stereotypes to them. So we do not know them, unless they're family. The Emerging Church has decided to, as Dr. MacArthur says, capture these ignored people by “sanctifying the culture. But the Bible doesn’t adapt to culture. It confronts culture. The Emerging Church, on the other hand, not only is unwilling to believe the clear statement of Scripture, but it wants to let the culture define what Christianity should be…whatever the current sin that needs to be tolerated in the culture is, they’ll buy into.”

Dr. MacArthur then talks again about big movements in history. He summarizes Pre-modernism: “there is truth and it comes from God, it has a supernatural source…men believed in God or they believed in the gods.” Modernism (which I’m figuring covers 1750-2000), he says, summarizes as: “there is truth and we can find it by human reason…not revelation from God, not the Bible, but human reason.” But Modernism wasn’t a good idea in practice: “the world got worse than it has ever been…the totalitarian world…fascism, Nazism, Communism, and the massacre of millions and millions of people in the name of human reason.” (The Lutherans didn’t have any trouble grabbing a gun to obey Hitler). Getting up-to-date, he says: “Now the idea of post-modernism says, “We give up. There may be truth, but we can’t know it. It may be from God, but we can’t know…so we embrace mystery…you have your truth, I have my truth…truth is whatever you think it is, whatever you want it to be, it’s intuitive, it’s experiential..but it’s not universal and it’s not knowable, universally knowable.” Mr. Johnson, the interviewer, responds, “That’s why these days the highest values, the sole-remaining virtues, are things like tolerance, ambiguity, mystery..” (To me, this “mystery kick” opens the door to searching in the occult; people still want plain answers to life's issues, which they're not getting in this psychobabble.) Dr. MacArthur says, “Oh, Brian McLaren says ambiguity is really a good thing (Mr. McLaren has been quoted as saying, ”Certainty is overrated”)...it gives people a license to invent their own religion, really…no one is permitted to challenge it…it is wonderful if you want to sin without any guilt. And I think that’s at the bottom of this…they hate the light because their deeds are evil.”

He also charges, “It’s not a theology; (they say they) don’t teach…and the word “sermon” scares them… no, we want to have a conversation. But the only part of the conversation they don’t like is when you say, ”That’s wrong. That’s sinful.” So their conversation...never has an objective…that’s another way to negate the Word of God. You can deny that it’s from God. But don’t tell me God has spoken but He mumbled. The worst thing we could do would be to soften the edges of what really is clear in Scripture.” (They claim) “the Bible is irrelevant, you can’t stand up for an hour and exposit the Word of God, you’ve got to tell them stories… To quote one of their leaders, “The bible (small “b” is their idea) is no longer a principal source of morality as a rulebook. The meaning of the Good Samaritan is more important than the Ten Commandments —even assuming the latter could be remembered in any detail by anyone…” A bit of sarcasm on the Ten Commandments there. These guys should work for the government, the way they diss true religion. By the way, some of the most revealing McLaren quotes are on this website: http://carm.org/brian-mclaren-quotes-ignorance-bliss-theology.

Dr. MacArthur feels that (they should say) “since we don’t know what it means, why would we teach?  Nobody has a right to impose on anybody else their ideas.” They take a sort of reverse humility in confessing their ignorance. To turn truth on its head, they believe that if someone claims to know what Scripture means, they have committed an act of pride. To quote MacArther:  “It is an attack on the clarity of Scripture and they elevate themselves as if this is some noble reality…which they call humility…(it’s) a celebration of ignorance.”

They also have this feature: “They’re really, really aggressive at tearing down the church, tearing down historic theology...that have been a part of the church’s life for centuries…that’s the lowest level of assault there is. Anybody can shred and destroy without having to build something back in its place…(they) just shred what people believe and walk away, leaving chaos everywhere…the egotism of it is pretty frightening. And the church is filled with people who have no foundation.”

He gives a few words of warning to those looking for a church home: "I don’t think a person should go to a church that isn’t answerable to a doctrinal statement…(if you do), you need to get out of there because you’re at the whim of a guy who can invent anything he wants any time. This entrepreneurial approach to the church is a very serious breach…" (There) “may be Christians who are seduced by this; in their ignorance they are the children tossed to and fro, carried about by every blowing wind of doctrine.” (Ephesians 4:14). Mr. Johnson, the interviewer, says: “And every man does what’s right in his own eyes.” (Judges 17:6). Dr. MacArthur maintains that young people from a denominational church that often lacks life and fails to exposit Scripture, these are the likely victims of this movement: “I don’t think (the Emerging Church) is nearly as appealing to the non-churched people as to the marginally churched young people…they are reacting to the superficiality and…the legalism of (their church).”

Dr. MacArthur speaks again to the clarity of Scripture. (Jesus) “says things to them in His day like this, ‘Have you not read? Have you not heard what Scripture says?’ He didn’t say to them, “Oh, look, I know why you’re having a tough time with Me, because the Old Testament is so hard to understand.” Then he brings up the example of the Gentiles, who were totally ignorant of the Old Testament…"Paul (who assumes the regular people are smart as he) builds these massive cases of understanding the Christian gospel based on the sacrificial system from the Old Testament…to come along and say that the Bible is not clear is then to accuse God, and (accusing) the Scripture itself of claiming something for itself that it can’t deliver. (Charging God like that is) pretty serious.”

**Note: Mars Hill Churches was the focus of the Emerging movement.  But Rob Bell was removed as senior pastor of his Mars Hill church in Michigan in 2011 after his beliefs were revealed in the book Love Wins. But he has come back, preaching at sold-out conferences in the U.K. and Ireland lately.
Mark Driscoll was removed from a separate Mars Hill pastorate in October 2014, most particularly because he called women "penis homes" and other misogynist remarks--plus, he's being charged with plagiarism.  It was also revealed that church money was used to pump up his book sales so he could make the NY Times Bestseller List. But he has come back, after taking in $1.1 million in donations in 2 years, he built a $1 million church in Phoenix, and has even been called upon to evangelical conferences. 
Brian McLaren is still going strong, too:  His latest book, The Great Spiritual Migration, includes the following crazy quote:

“Christianity, we might say, is driving around with a loaded gun in its glove compartment, and that loaded gun is its violent image of God. It’s driving around with a license to kill, and that license is its Bible, read uncritically. Along with its loaded gun and license to kill, it’s driving around with a sense of entitlement derived from a set of beliefs with a long, ugly, and largely unacknowledged history.”

 Their mouths are the loaded guns.


Acknowledgement: Thomas Horn, Blood on the Altar
Christianity Today

Escaping Hell: God's Negative Promises (Part 2 of 2)

I trust you have learned much from our Part I essay on God’s negative promises. An unpleasant task, but worthwhile. Let us complete the task in Part 2.

II Tim 2:11-13 says:
This is a faithful saying: 12…If we deny Him, He also will deny us.13 If we are faithless, He remains faithful; He cannot deny Himself.

Many times I have heard sermons on v. 13 alone. The message the uplifting pastor gives is, if we practice sin, God will still remain faithful and see to it that we will go to heaven. Because we’re saved, the pastor says. But, folks, that’s not what the verses say. Taking the two verses together, it really says this: God will remain faithful in His promise as to what He does with people who deny Him. He will deny us! (Matthew 10:33). Don’t read anything positive in the statement “He cannot deny Himself.” Read it as follows: if He doesn’t carry out His negative promise, He would be denying His perfection. Yes, He is faithful to carry out a negative promise as well as a positive one. Thus, we obtain an opposite meaning from the sermons—because the pastor doesn’t look at the previous verse, verse 12. Context is crucial.


Romans 8:13: For if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live

We must consciously sacrifice worldly thoughts and behaviors. We cannot continue to live “according to the flesh,” pleasing our lower nature. Or we “die”—another reference to hell.

James 2:13: For judgment is without mercy to the one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment

Showing mercy is an extremely important Christian fruit. Look at Luke 16:19-31 for Jesus' startling presentation on that subject:

“There was a certain rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and fared sumptuously every day. 20 But there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, full of sores, who was laid at his gate, 21 desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell] from the rich man’s table. Moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. 22 So it was that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s bosom. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 And being in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. 24 “Then he cried and said, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.’ 25 But Abraham said, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things; but now he is comforted and you are tormented.26 And besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, so that those who want to pass from here to you cannot, nor can those from there pass to us.’ 27 “Then he said, ‘I beg you therefore, father, that you would send him to my father’s house, 28 for I have five brothers, that he may testify to them, lest they also come to this place of torment.’ 29 Abraham said to him, ‘They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.’ 30 And he said, ‘No, father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ 31 But he said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.’”

Note the following: The rich man is in hell (hades, the same thing). Why such a horrible reward for his behavior? I mean, he’s rich—doesn’t that mean that God loves him, and would make sure he went to heaven? Bad assumption. He was in hades because he refused to show any mercy to the beggar, whom he passed every single day and refused to lift a finger. Yet, you say, this seems to be an extreme punishment for him not being merciful! Here, the rich man is suffering in great torment—extreme heat, parched tongue, flames—all truly what hell is. Think about that—would God do such a thing? Well, if we question Him doing it, it probably means we have no inkling of how much He hates sin! Don't forget, God was willing to give up His only Son, to die a horrible death, because He loved us—and yet we stamp on His love by ignoring His Son’s words to us to follow His commands. Finally, notice that the rich man, tormented as he was, gets not one simple request fulfilled—he doesn’t get his tongue cooled, not a word is said to warn his brothers. Why? His time of mercy has passed. “Judgment is without mercy,” as James 2:13 above says, since he had shown no mercy. No second chances! Once in hades or hell, you get no mercy, you’re in hell forever! Let us learn from this and show mercy to the downtrodden. Make no excuse for yourself, thinking “they wasted their life, and deserve to be there.” God knows our every thought. Don’t we want God's mercy in judgement for our many sins when we die?

Revelation 14:9-12: Then a third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, “If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives his mark on his forehead or on his hand, 10 he himself shall also drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out full strength into the cup of His indignation. He shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. 11 And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; and they have no rest day or night, who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name. 12Here is the patience of the saints; here are those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.

When the hunger of the end times comes, it seems getting the "mark" is the way to get the needs of life met easily--food, clothing, medical care (Revelation 13:16-17). People will be fearful that without the mark, they may starve, or die because of poor health. The temptation to take the mark will be almost impossible to ignore. Yet the angel warns us that if we do take the mark, we get hell, we get the wrath of God, we get tormented with fire and brimstone—forever. Is the trade-off worth it? If we believe God’s Word is Truth, it actually makes sense to starve to death (although I think God will perform miracles to keep that from happening), in order to gain heaven instead of hell. Here are your choices: Do you prefer a couple months or years of filling your belly, and then death and hell forever? Or do you prefer death now, and heaven forever? Forever is a lot longer than a couple years. Heaven is unspeakably better than hell. If you believe that God speaks the truth, it’s no contest which way to go. Yet most people are predictable; their immediate needs are as far as they see. So Scripture speaks of a great apostasy (falling away from Him and His truth) in those End Times. And we may be in that unfortunate generation. We need to pray and be mentally prepared--and our families. Sad to say, many will be unprepared--a lot of “Christians” will make excuses to God while they apostatize and take the mark. To their eternal destruction. He will stick to His promise, regardless of their excuses. II Thessalonians 2:3 clearly says that there will be many who will be weak and fall away:

Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition


II Chronicles 15:2: And he went out to meet Asa, and said to him: “Hear me, Asa, and all Judah and Benjamin. The LORD is with you while you are with Him. If you seek Him, He will be found by you; but if you forsake Him, He will forsake you.

Yes, it’s possible to be forsaken by God--if we forsake Him. What, you thought He was a God of unconditional love, patient forever, faithful to keep us safe to the end, etc., etc.? Guess you had the wrong idea about Him. If you’re smart, you need to read His Word about what He thinks, rather than guessing and hoping your way through. Let us not mentally create God to be what we want--but what if He isn't? We can't spend time on speculation that often turns on self-deception. Scripture is the best way to find out truly about God.  It also says we guess wrong about what God is thinking. As Isaiah 55:8-9 says:

“For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,” says the LORD.9 “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts.

Ezekiel 33:13: When I say to the righteous that he shall surely live, but he trusts in his own righteousness and commits iniquity, none of his righteous works shall be remembered; but because of the iniquity that he has committed, he shall die

“Die” refers to hell. You say you had your one moment of receiving Jesus, you got “righteous”--but your life hasn’t really changed? You say that you behaved when you were young, but now you want to sow your wild oats before you get old, then repent of it all and get saved again? Convenient assumptions…but big mistakes; that trend doesn't happen. As the Ezekiel verse says, He seems to be a “what have you done for Me lately” God. He is patient with us when we ignore Him for a time, but His patience has a limit.

Matthew 7:21,23: “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven…And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!

God promises hell to those who have the “lip service,” yet they “practice lawlessness.” These are people who say, “It’s all right to sin..I’ll confess it later,” or “Now that I’m saved, I can sin and not lose my salvation. Sinning just makes me lose fellowship, or lose a crown.” Such people encourage lawlessness. Their theology opened the door to sin. If they walk through it--they’re on their way to hell, regardless of sincere theology. They haven’t read their Bibles about expectations God had for them to fight sin.

John 5:29: … and come forth—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation

Note the key to the resurrection of life: Doing good. This presumes a faith in Christ and new birth previously.  But faith cannot be alone and live. This agrees with the book of James which speaks of “dead faith,” James 2:17:

Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

That “faith” won’t get you to heaven; you end up in hell. Works, fruit, are necessary to maintain salvation. See my blogs on “initial…final salvation,” and “Paul v James.”

Psa 37:10-11: For yet a little while and the wicked shall be no more; Indeed, you will look carefully for his place, But it shall be no more.11 But the meek shall inherit the earth, And shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace

Thank God--no more wicked people!

IN SUMMARY: In Exodus 34:6,7 God describes Himself and emphasizes His mercy and patience

And the LORD passed before him and proclaimed, “The LORD, the LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abounding in goodness and truth, 7 keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and the children’s children to the third and the fourth generation

See also Nehemiah 9:31 and Psa 145:8-9 and Micah 7:18. BUT as I said in my opening remarks, you need to see the other side of God to get the true picture. He is jealous (Exodus 20:5), gets wrathful and avenging over sin, even slaughters people for their sin; in fact, He hates some people! (But there is room for sincere repentance.)  See Psa 11:5

The LORD tests the righteous, But the wicked and the one who loves violence His soul hates.

It’s important to see both sides of God, that He is faithful to His promises, even if that means people go to hell. Let us never forget that few people make it to heaven—most people make up their own view about God, and consign themselves to hell. See Matthew 7:14 for proof that this happens to the majority of people:

Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.

Never forget this sobering fact.

Acknowledgement to Daniel Corner, writer and preacher

Corrupting the Image, Messing With the DNA an End-Times Sign

You may recall my blog on DNA (Dec 30, 2017), how in Genesis 6:1-4, during the time of Noah, I proved, Scripturally, that those verses speak of demonic  angels who took on the form of men and married women, and had sex with them.  This was a violation of God’s law, since a demonic angel’s seed and DNA was celestial (and immortal), but her ovum and DNA were earthly. So their babies were not truly human; they were not in the image of God—they were a perverted hybrid of demon and human.  Genesis 6:4, using the New International, calls their children “Nephilim” in Hebrew; this was translated “giants” in some Bibles, but the word means “fallen.”  Their children were, in fact, huge men; nine hundred  years later, it happened again, on a lesser scale; an average member of the tribe of Rephaim, Og of Bashan, called the “last of the giants,” is in Deuteronomy 3:11 lies on a bed that is iron and was 9 cubits high.  Assuming Moses used the measure he was familiar with, the Egyptian royal cubit of 20.63 inches, the bed was 15-1/2 feet tall.  So he was likely 14-15 feet tall.  Galileo long ago calculated a weight-to-height ratio for men, and his weight was estimated at 3,125 pounds.  So, 40 years before Og, when the Hebrew spies were suggesting not attacking the Anakites in Numbers 13, it wasn't because they were cowards; they meant what they said when they said “we were like grasshoppers in their sight.”  Several whole tribes were giants.  Like in Noah’s day, this was another demonic invasion of earth.  Scripture confirms it in Genesis 6:4 when it says:  "There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward..."

But back in Noah’s time, the giant Nephilim were generally considered demigods;   they were called “mighty men of renown”, and they led people into more violence and more sexual immorality.  They had sex with possibly thousands of women; the prospect of sex with a 15-foot tall man might have been a great curiosity and turn-on for the women.  So there were lots more children that weren’t really human, but a hybrid of human and demon.  The earth, over time, likely became filled with “people” who had demonic DNA in them.  It's even possible that a complete tainting of humanity was possible, since people consistently lived over 800 years, and the astounding extension of procreation makes the spread of gene corruption skyrocket.  (When AIDS was the “talk of the town” in the 1980s, we read repeatedly how fast sexually transmitted disease travels, even among us limited-age humans).  In Noah's time, God was fed up with this, and His flood killed every single soul on the earth except eight—Noah and his immediate family. Was God capricious for killing millions of people?  Don't forget, the huge number of people indulging in this deviancy had rejected God’s image, preferring the demonic image.  It’s possible the majority of people were not really human—and not redeemable for  heaven. For further proof, note that Noah, in building the ark, preached countless times of the great judgment to come—yet he converted not a single soul, or else they would have been on the ark.  Note also the greatest compliment God has for Noah in His Word—in Genesis 6:9, he was “perfect in his generations.”  The word "perfect" is not a word of morality; it is a word of DNA perfection. There was no demonic  hybrid in him.  That fact was evidently rare.  When man took on demonic DNA—he chose ultra-violent and evil lifestyles, not redeemable, and not human.  This is what God wiped out.

In that blog I also made a connection to the End Times, pointing out that recent science has been able to change and merge DNA again, and how this could be corrupted by men for wrong uses.  I also pointed out what Jesus said in prophecy (Matthew 24:38,39), paraphrased, “As it was in the days of Noah, so will it be again,”—in the end times.  Well, after reading a fascinating book by Douglas Hamp, “Corrupting the Image,” I have some follow-up that would do you well to stretch your mind and consider. 

Hamp anchors his thesis on Genesis 3:15:

And I will put enmity between you and the woman, And between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, And you shall bruise His heel.”

The word “enmity” suggests an antithesis (opposite) is coming in the sentence:  The woman’s Seed refers to Christ—and “your” (at this point He was speaking to the serpent’s, or devil’s) seed then refers to the opposite, the antichrist (I John 2:22).  As Christ is the Son of God, the devil’s DNA is passed to his own son, the antichrist.   He was called “the Beast” (Revelation 13:3b-6), I suspect, because he wasn’t really human, but a hybrid of Satan and human. The devil manages to wound Christ (at the crucifixion), but Christ is victorious in resurrection, and will eventually kill the serpent and his seed, once and for all. His final crushing blow comes in the end times. Thus Genesis 3:15, since it comments on the antichrist, and the time of his demise, is also an end-times prophecy. 

The word “seed” needs a scientific explanation.  When a male and female “know” each other (Biblically), his seed, which in the Greek is “sperma,” combines with her seed, the ovum, the egg—and a baby is miraculously fused.  At this point, it’s called a “zygote.”  But seed is really DNA at its core.  Thus, his 23 unique chromosomes with DNA, or a “halfway cell,” combine with her 23 unique chromosomes, with DNA, to form 46, in 23 pairs, and a baby is conceived. 

At this point Mr. Hamp makes some very interesting points. A little background:  Adam and Eve were created perfect (Genesis 1:31)—that means their DNA was “coded” perfectly (since that’s mainly what DNA is).  They were supposed to be pure, and immortal.  But due to Adam’s sin, he was punished with two things:  death, and a tendency to sin. This was called “original sin” by theologians.  Both of these characteristics (death and tendency to sin) were passed on to the entire race of humankind.   Now, to take this a step further:  Based on scientific study (recorded in “Science Spectra #14, 1998”), the Y chromosome, passed from father to son, is an exact copy of the same one from generation to generation.  That means every male today has the same Y chromosome as Adam.   It was also found that the Y contains the record of an “event” in the lifetime of our original father, since some of the DNA coding appears scrambled or lost.  We also know that our DNA is likewise corrupted. Mr. Hamp muses, what if that “event” was the fall of Adam? What if God’s punishment of the original sin, the death, the tendency to sin, was His corruption of that Y chromosome?  Perhaps that’s the tangible record of original sin, that keeps going on, and on, through all generations.  That explains how the effects of the sin of Adam get passed down through history—and how we have the same curse of death, and the tendency to sin, that he had.

But….what chromosome did Jesus not have?  The Y chromosome—because His father was not Joseph, but God (Matthew 1:18).  Mary’s egg fused with seed from the Holy Spirit.  So Jesus did not inherit the Y chromosome from a man, so He did not have original sin, like all of us. That’s why He is called the “only begotten” Son of God (John 1:18).  Now if you argue that because of this, Jesus could not sin, you’d be wrong.  He had the physical weaknesses of humankind—like us, He had to respond to threats, to torture, to famine, to scorn.  But like beginning Adam, He had a choice--not a tendency, a choice--to sin, or not to sin, in each case.  He chose not to sin.  So His perfection was acceptable to the Father—and He became our Lamb of sacrifice, of substitution, paying for our sin—as a ransom to free us—if we trust Him.

So we figure that fallen angels, or demons, were trying to destroy God’s image in Noah’s time.  But despite their demonic giant children being wiped out in the Flood, giants reappear nine hundred years later in the Anakim and the Rephaim tribes in the Old Testament (Deut. 2:11, 3:11 AMP), as we saw in my discussion above. That demonic corruption led people into the worst of idolatry, with sacrifices of children to their gods the worst example.  So God again had a brutal answer; He told Joshua to kill every member, men, women, and children, of their seven nations in Canaan, who evidently all had fast-spreading demonic DNA (Deut.20:16-18).  But Joshua did not complete the job.  There were still a few giants again, such as Goliath, who appears another 400 years later, and was estimated to be over 10 feet tall. 

So, looking at Genesis 6:4 again:

There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward,

if we keep in mind that this indicates that the “sons of God” (demonic angels) would be operating “afterward” as well to try to corrupt God’s image, these later appearances mean they were still invading our civilization several times over.  My point is, What’s to keep them from not trying some tricks again today?  Here’s where the theories get wild, so hang on to your seats.  Mr. Hamp believes that Daniel 2:43 (when Daniel interprets Nebuchadnezzar’s dream of the image of four kingdoms) contains a telltale phrase.  Here is the verse, with my underlines: 

As you saw iron mixed with ceramic clay, they will mingle with the seed of men; but they will not adhere to one another, just as iron does not mix with clay

To any reader of eschatology, in context, this is the 4^th kingdom echo that is yet future.  It will be dominated by a person who is so sold out to the devil that he is willing to—with smart Satanic science--fuse Satan’s DNA into himself.  He will genetically be the son of Satan. (Thus Satan will counterfeit Jesus the Son of God).  Satan’s genetic son then becomes the antichrist.  With Satan’s intellectual genius and huge abilities to plan and deceive in the antichrist’s DNA, he will defeat kingdoms, military or otherwise, and earn the worship of an admiring public as he rises to the top of the world’s military dictators.  Many eschatologists believe, further, that this is a revamped Roman Empire.  More importantly for our study, Mr. Hamp believes that the words “mix,” or “mingle with the seed of men,” definitely refers to another future invasion of demons  into our population, again producing demonic/human hybrid children, again fouling our DNA, again making people not human, not carrying God’s image—and leading them into gross violence, idolatry, and evil.

Only this time it doesn’t have to involve a sexual act to introduce the new DNA.  Modern science has taken care of that. 

The antichrist will make his greatest deception ever, in an area you wouldn't believe. We’ve all heard of UFOs.  An intelligent person would not think seriously about them, right?  Wrong.  Per a 2009 study, 40 million Americans said they have seen or know someone who has seen an unidentified flying object. Now that may be exaggerated, but please read these testimonials:  Captain Edgar Mitchell, Apollo 14 astronaut, said “We all know that UFOs are real.  All we need to ask is where do they come from?” Ronald Reagan said in a 1987 speech to the U.N. that an alien force was among us.  In 1966 Gerald Ford recommended an official investigation of UFOs.  Jimmy Carter said he had seen one in 1976.  General Douglas MacArthur admitted in 1955 that the next war will be an interplanetary war.  And the list goes on.  (See pp. 189-194 of Hamp’s book).  Well, Mr. Hamp would like to suggest an answer to Capt. Mitchell’s “where from” question:  UFOs are demons camouflaged to be "aliens." Keep in mind, they are able to move through dimensions—from spiritual to our three dimensions.  Mr. Hamp (who believes the rapture of true Christians happens before the End Days) is convinced that this whole behind-the scenes game is designed so when Christians are raptured by God, the antichrist will announce to humanity remaining that we were whisked away by UFOs because we Christians do not believe in the evolution of man; we are not optimists about man’s nature or future.  The antichrist will introduce some aliens (really demons) for worldwide TV viewing.  They will be light-emitting geniuses with special powers—powers that he will show off (II Thess. 2:9).  If you want these fabulous powers, if you want to evolve into transhumanism, just come in for an injection of his recombinant DNA, take the mark as proof, and you will have the power to evolve into anything your heart desires. He will declare eventually that he is God, and we can become gods too (II Thess. 2:3-4). (Later, when some people are leery of doing it, he will suggest that you won’t be able to buy anything unless you take the DNA and mark.)  But if you do it, you will have taken on demon DNA.  You are no longer human.  You have rejected God’s image.  So you will be destined for hell, the same harsh treatment that earlier rebellious Nephilim generations got.  God says so in Revelation 13:17, 14:9-12:

…no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or the name of the beast…Then a third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, “If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives his mark on his forehead or on his hand, ¹⁰ he himself shall also drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out full strength into the cup of His indignation. He shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. ¹¹ And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; and they have no rest day or night, who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name.” ¹² Here is the patience of the saints; here are those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.

Well, I am not a believer in a pre-tribulation rapture, and am not sure what to think about UFOs, but it is possible to weave such a story with UFOs, even to tempt saints if they have to go through the tribulation of the last days before rapture as I believe.  Families could be pulled apart, with some members yielding to the temptation of evolution into special powers, into acceptance—while other members reject it as against Scriptural commands—and having their life threatened.  Despite its wildness, it is better that I told you of this future theory, in case the fantastic becomes real.  Far-out other theories have been soberly put forth--witness the fear of AI (artificial intelligence) by some of the world’s most brilliant minds--Elon Musk and Bill Gates (at the Vanity Fair summit, also studied on Glenn Beck). Musk says about the headlong AI research, “we are summoning the demon.” (There is a real fear that computers and their robots will acquire so much intelligence that they will become our overlords.) 

It is certainly true, above all else, that we must avoid the mark of the antichrist. When the “Beast” shuts off buying unless you take his mark, it will be a huge temptation if you simply want to feed yourself or your family.  It will take patience and faith in Jesus, who can perform miracles for us.  Just look at the big picture:  Christ is the winning side in this global battle (Rev. 19:19-21). We cannot give our body to the devil’s keeping, no matter how glorious that makes us, if we would at the same time be giving our soul to hell—for eternity.  If you’re a rational person, just answer this:  Which is more important?  A short-term pain of you sacrificing your body, or an eternal pain of fire and brimstone in hell?  Choose carefully.

Acknowledgement:  Corrupting the Image, Douglas Hamp, 2011