Corrupting the DNA Happened in Noah's Time, Will Happen Again. An End-Times Sign.

Let’s start with Genesis 6:1-4:

Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, ² that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose.3 And the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.”  ⁴ There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown

It says the “sons of God” and daughters of men, bore giants, mighty men of renown.  Who are the “sons of God?”  Modern commentators say they were the descendants of Seth, the third son of Adam and Eve, the ascendant of Jesus.  The “daughters of men,” they say, refers to the descendants of Cain, the wicked son of Adam who killed Abel.  But there is not one scrap of Scripture backing this up—no Scripture anywhere refers to the descendants of Seth as “sons of God.”  And why would their sexual union produce giants?  So, it's easy to find fault with that idea; truth is, you can’t always follow the commentators.  Instead, as it turns out, the phrase “sons of God” does appear elsewhere in Scripture.  In Job 38:4-7, God is chastising Job for not seeing the big picture of His sovereignty.  He is speaking here of the creation of the earth:

“Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding. ⁵ Who determined its measurements? Surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? ⁶ To what were its foundations fastened? Or who laid its cornerstone, ⁷ When the morning stars sang together, And all the sons of God shouted for joy?

The sons of God couldn’t be humans, who were not around at the creation of the earth (see Genesis 1 for the order of events).  They have to be angels, who were there for that great spectacle.  In Job 1:6 and 2:1, when Satan appears in heaven to accuse Job, angels are in attendance and are called by that name, “sons of God.”  So, based on these Scriptures, the “sons of God” in Genesis 6 are clearly angels.

What happened in Genesis 6 is this: angels who rebelled against God (and there were some, see Isa 14:12ff) lusted after earth women. (Jesus said in Matthew 22:30 that heavenly angels  are unmarried, but these in Genesis are rule-breakers).  They took human form (as happens many times in Scripture, such as Genesis 18).  They entered earth as men to marry and have babies.  But this broke one of God’s rules.  What rule? In Jude, they are accused of the sin of “not keeping their proper domain.”  Their proper domain, God said, was heaven.  By breaking the rule, God placed them in “chains under darkness.”  Jude 1:6-7 says:

 And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day; ⁷ as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Note the telltale comparison tying these angels to Sodom, having "given themselves over to sexual immorality."  Particularly note the reference to their going after "strange flesh." Note that angelic "flesh" is not human flesh.

This is confirmed by II Peter 2: 4-5.  Note the “chains of darkness” again tying Jude and II Peter together.

For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell (Ed. ESV and Amplified, "tartarus," not the same as hell ) and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment (THEN they got to hell); ⁵ and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly; 

Note the connection of Noah, which ties this to Genesis 6; also note the severity of their judgment.  Please keep in mind that the angels that stayed in heaven were NOT disobedient; these are the ones that protect us now.  Their job in protecting us includes fighting with "rulers of the darkness of this age," making warnings and happy announcements to humans, and worshiping God in heaven. Some angels, however, left their “proper domain,” heaven, and went to earth and committed sexual immorality by going after “strange flesh”—for them, strange flesh means earth women--the evil resulting from those unions climaxed in the time of Noah and God judged humanity.   So clearly Jude and II Peter are thinking of the same event as Genesis 6.  The evil result was babies that turned out to be giants. Why giants?   I’m thinking, angelic DNA is not human; but it mixed with human DNA and produced aberrant children who grew to be giants—whose grown-up activities, it so happens, coincided with a vast increase in violence and evil.  Were the appearance of the giants and increase in evil connected?  Read on in Genesis 6, starting with vv.4b-7a, 12:

Those (the giants) were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown. ⁵ Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. ⁶ And the Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. ⁷ So the Lord said, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth…¹¹ The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. ¹² So God looked upon the earth, and indeed it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth.

My speculation is, the giants were loved for their sinful ability to conquer and kill the enemy--and in those days, anyone not of your tribe could be your enemy.  Thus, lots of killing, lots of blood shed.   Could it be that the giants, the greatest of warriors, were often worshiped as demigods?  After all, they had one parent mortal, the other parent immortal—there would have been a fascination with them just because of that. They were called “men of renown”—the public knew them. They were rock stars in that day. Plus, they were obviously strong.  They had superior intellect and could make superior weapons of war (I’ll prove that later).  So, men falling into idolatry by effectively worshiping these creatures, could have been the thing of the day.  And idolatry will ruin your morals faster than anything.  These qualities make them leaders in any society of “normal” men that they cared to reside in.  I’m sure they were happy for the attention, and it boosted their ego—egged them on to perform outrageous feats for entertainment.  But men in all of history are always looking for a way to dominate, to destroy other men, to loot and take their land. These demigods were ideal to lead armies, to gain an edge, in killing.  The attention, the ego, thus probably meant that they led the whole land into idolatry and violence.  How many men could a giant kill?  Can we capture more men, make them slaves, take advantage of their wives, loot their houses, with this giant as our leader? Let’s find out! 

To further prove my case, there is the definition of “corrupt” in Hebrew (Gen. 6:11-12 above).  The word means “marred, spoiled, perverted,” and “injured.” So it isn't just defined as a moral problem.  I think the mixed DNA perverted, or corrupted, the DNA genes too.  Thinking further, the giants probably spread these perverted genes around.  We can assume they, with their giant egos, had casual sex. Women would certainly be attracted.  Their female "casual sex" partners probably had sex with others.  Their babies’ DNA would be corrupted, and on down it would go with their partners passing it on to others,until it perverts a great number of people (see studies on the rapid spread of sexual diseases, for example).  If you pervert the gene pool, you can’t go back and make it right again. I also believe (and this is speculation) that a person who is not really human, with aberrant DNA, cannot be saved, since God's plan of salvation was strictly for humans, people in His image. And these giants, their genes, were NOT humans in His image.  Look how Noah was considered a great preacher of righteousness (II Peter 2:5 above)--yet, in 120 years (see Genesis 6:3 above), as far as we know, he couldn't save one person outside his immediate family!  That's extraordinary. Maybe they simply couldn't be turned to righteousness. So if we ever wonder about why God killed everyone except 8 people, He had a legitimate reason; maybe they were tainted and unsavable, and God would righteously want to start over, at least with humans whose DNA had not been corrupted.  This word “corrupted” is the strongest hint in the Bible at the possibility that messing with DNA was the real problem behind all this.  But I have more on this later. 

Lest you think this story is just too strange to be true, I have several more Bible quotes to consider.  And let's not throw away this idea because it sounds supernatural.  After all, supernatural events are what God is all about.  Think about Mary.  If I had a daughter who got pregnant, what would people say when I told them, “she is still a virgin—has never known a man.  The child’s father is God.”  Would I be believed?  No.  But was it true?  Yes. Likewise, the Resurrection is hard to believe, but it happened--nothing is impossible with God.  And also consider the anthropologist argument that, when many societies have a legend that speak of basically the same thing, it must have really happened.  So, since every society in the world has a legend about a gigantic flood, even though their stories differ, there must have really been one.  Every society, too, has a legend of demigod men, of “gods” coming down and being intimate with earth women.  They may have been called Hercules, Atlas, or Cu Chulainn, but the point is, this worldwide legend also strongly suggests they truly existed.  

So, God wanted to start over with Noah’s immediate family, the only ones left who had pure DNA.  

But evil angels were not done with corrupting men, because later Scripture stories show some of these giant creatures, on a lesser scale, were still being born, after the Flood.  (Trace the word “Nephilim” or "Rephaim" in Scripture, using the NIV, and don’t forget Goliath.  And don't forget Og of Bashan). 

I’d like to take a little sidelight below. I realize I am dipping into speculation now for awhile, but it’s interesting stuff. 

Jesus said the end times would be like the days of Noah, in Matthew 24:36-38:

“But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only. ³⁷ But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. ³⁸ For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark,

Everybody focuses on the drinking and multiple marriages, and the lesson they teach us is that people are not thinking of God, and no one is aware that judgment is coming.  But there’s likely another story here—why did God pick Noah’s day as judgment day back then?  What was unusual?  I’m talking, of course, about messing with the DNA, God's image. Then, it led to extreme violence and evil.  Well, what’s starting to happen today?  Have you ever heard the term “editing DNA,” or “recombinant DNA?” Or, have you ever heard the word "transhumanism?"  Interesting article in Wired magazine’s August 2015, issue, gives the good side of it. To quote: “Using the three-year-old technique, researchers have already reversed mutations that cause blindness, stopped cancer cells from multiplying, and made cells impervious to the virus that causes AIDS. Agronomists have rendered wheat invulnerable to killer fungi like powdery mildew, hinting at engineered staple crops that can feed a population of 9 billion on an ever-warmer planet. Bioengineers have used Crispr (ed: the name of the technique) to alter the DNA of yeast so that it consumes plant matter and excretes ethanol, promising an end to reliance on petrochemicals.”

All good, right?  But the article also shows a little of the questionable side of it, to quote:  “designer babies, invasive mutants, species-specific bioweapons, and a dozen other apocalyptic sci-fi tropes. It brings with it all-new rules for the practice of research in the life sciences. But no one knows what the rules are—or who will be the first to break them.”

Bioweapons.  Invasive mutants.  All by mixing man's DNA with creatures, mixing in their superiority in some trait--but all the results cannot be predicted.  Some creatures see better, some others hear better, some can carry far more weight.  You know the military would love to develop mixing in these creatures into soldiers' DNA.  They could breed super-soldiers, the kind that could kill more people, more efficiently. And they could also engineer them to not feel remorse.  Those countries who have this technology would use it to oppress other nations who don’t have the money or the scientific capability to develop it.  This would kick off a scramble of many wars of oppression and land-grabbing again, on a scale like it hasn’t been for centuries.  That’s the military’s dream scenario--assuming, they figure, we could win.  As for the other purposes of editing DNA--most everybody would like perfect babies.  Heck, with that, we could say good-by to the flaws of natural birth and natural genes.  Sounds great?  But what if only some could afford it, others couldn't? Then we'd be talking about who gets the designer genes, who doesn't.  Then we're back to the Superior Race stuff again, a replay of Nazism.  

So here we are, messing with DNA again, looking at the possibility of unpredictable sinful results again.  There are no rules, so I guarantee some scientists are on a quest to expand DNA editing, no matter the results.  The Wired article’s headline says, “Easy DNA editing will remake the world.”  What’s really spooky is the subheading:  “The Genesis Engine.” 

We have further proof of this DNA idea--this time, not from Scripture, but a source close to Scripture.  It’s from the book of Enoch. Written by him.  Who is Enoch? Enoch was a man, from the 7^th generation from Adam, he was a prophet, and was so godly that he was one of only two people in history who did not die (the other was Elijah, who rose out of sight on a flaming chariot).  Genesis 5:24 says: 

And Enoch walked with God; and he was not, for God took him

This means he didn’t die; God raptured him. Jude (which we previously mentioned) was directed by God to write one of Enoch’s prophecies into the Bible.  That prophecy was recorded in the book of Enoch first, then in the Bible.  So God approved Enoch's book.  The prophecy is In Jude 1:14-15:

Now Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men (false teachers) also, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of His holy ones, ¹⁵ to execute judgment on all, to convict all who are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have committed in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.”

The point is, Enoch is a good source for godly and truthful writing.  And he does have many things to say in his book about those sinning angels. Enoch agrees with Scripture and, interestingly, agrees with our deductions from Scripture, only he expressed them more plainly.  Here is a quote from Enoch:

(the earth women)…bore beautiful and comely daughters.  The angels, children of the heavens, saw and lusted after them and said to one another, “Come, let us choose wives from among the children of men, and beget children for ourselves.  And all the others together with them took unto themselves wives, and began to go in unto them, and began to defile themselves with them…and they became pregnant, and they bore great giants.  

The book of Enoch straight up calls them angels. 
Enoch also has descriptions of how these angels taught men how to make superior weapons (that would increase violence); taught women how to make cosmetics--how to become more sexually attractive (thus increasing sexuality, and de-emphasizing the inner character that God approves), and taught them astrology (an ungodly "science," not astronomy).  These are all bad. Enoch explains that the angels are then punished by “chains…all the days of the world” because they “defiled” themselves with women and begot children “intermingled with the blood of humans.” Note that phrase “intermingled with the blood.”  This speaks of an intermingling of angelic and human DNA.  The reference to the intermingling of blood is a stronger suggestion of corrupting DNA.  Enoch says about angels, “Your dwelling is heaven.”  Every statement totally agrees with Jude and II Peter, and elaborates further and more plainly.  Here is the final plain statement from Enoch I would like you to consider:  

 The giants who are produced from the spirits and flesh shall be called evil spirits upon the earth. 

Thus we have a definitive quote for giants being called “evil spirits.”  
These Enoch verses, I believe, were godly and true.  Though the Bible’s quotes only hint that the giants were evil, Enoch says so plainly.  The corrupted giants evidently had superior technological intelligence (which could better explain than the current theory: some ancient architecture must have come from an alien visitation to earth).  But superior technology has always been given over to a corrupt use, a way to more efficiently oppress or kill other men.  

Thus my final point:  If we corrupt DNA again, we again have superior "people," who are worshipped for their power and intelligence--and, since they are unsavable, they are prone to ego, violence, and oppression. It also could lead to many wars and land-grabbing, and man oppressing man.  It sounds like a Scriptural description for the Beast (note that that term "beast" could refer to him as non-human--but he is worshipped like a human).  And note his extreme hatred of God and his extreme persecution of God's people.  It's in Revelation 13:

And all the world marveled and followed the beast. 4 So they worshiped the dragon who gave authority to the beast; and they worshiped the beast, saying, “Who is like the beast? Who is able to make war with him?”

5 And he was given a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies, and he was given authority to continue for forty-two months. 6 Then he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme His name, His tabernacle, and those who dwell in heaven. 7 It was granted to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them. And authority was given him over every tribe, tongue, and nation. 8 All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. 

If the Beast is a DNA-edited "human," we may not be far off from end times.  I have other blogs that say more about the chronological events of end times, and my belief that Scripture proves that Christians will have to live through this Great Tribulation from Matthew 24 and Revelation 6-13.  It will be a world of great danger.

Are you ever fearful for the future, for yourself and your children?  Would you want them to live in a world that is unsafe?  You can receive help by falling into the arms of Jesus.  Believe it when Scripture calls Him the only begotten Son of the Father.  He has a claim on your obedience to His commands in Scripture--He loves you enough to die for you. 

Acknowledgement:  David Bercot, CD, “Satan and the Demons,” Scroll Publishing.

Exact Month of Jesus' Birth Predicted by Stars and Scripture--and What Happened on December 25?

People tend to scoff at this Biblical record of the star of Bethlehem, saying

“this star is doing things a star cannot do.” They’re  questioning Matthew 2:9:

When they heard the king, they departed; and behold, the star which they had seen in the East went before them, till it came and stood over where the young Child was.

“How does a star “stand over,”or stop, people say. So they assume this story is a fable. Well, science has a surprising answer to that question. Of course,if we can "prove" it, they would ask “Why do you think you can introduce some new facts now, when we haven’t heard anything convincing in all of history?” Science has a reason for that too.

A little background: The author of the CD I'm summarizing is Professor Larson--a lawyer, not a reputed scientist. But he has been a lifelong fan of astronomy—movements of stars and planets and constellations. (Not the same as astrology, which is often abused as predictive, telling you how to run your life). Scripture praises astronomy: it insists the stars tell us things from God. But Scripture condemns astrology. Note Job 9:9:

He (God) made the Bear, Orion, and the Pleiades, And the chambers of the south.

And note Psalm 19:1-2:

The heavens declare the glory of God…2 Day unto day utters speech, And night unto night reveals knowledge.

Thus, the stars communicate. God wants us to study the heavens to see what He might announce or tell us. Prof. Larson found Biblical proof that will surprise you (see also his website, bethlehemstar.net)  Now you’ll surely ask, “Why isn’t he supported by reputable scientists?” Well, why do most of our scientific minds believe in evolution instead of creationism? And what happens to scientists who believe in creationism?  The fact is: To the world, their basic “truths” are anti-God. Hey, If those who have the media, those in power, are rational, why did they kill Jesus?

Final background: Johannes Kepler in 1619 discovered the math behind the movements of the solar system. With hundreds of hours of effort, he could map how the sky appeared on any date, past or future, since all movements of everything in the sky are predictable. But the effort required was ponderous for math and science geniuses of his generation. Now we have the advent of computers; so these movements have been incorporated into software programs. How the sky will appear from any location on the planet for any given date can now be found in seconds—in fact, the computer can even animate their movements through a period of time. So we are only now able to answer the big question: “Which of them is the star of Bethlehem—if any?” There are, it is estimated, 100 billion galaxies, and 100 billion stars in each—how can you find the Bethlehem star in such a crowd?

Here is the relevant Bible passage, Matthew 2:1-9, from which we will draw necessary characteristics for the Bethlehem star:

Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem, saying, “Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we have seen His star in the East and have come to worship Him.” 3 When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. 4 And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he inquired of them where the Christ was to be born. 5 So they said to him, “In Bethlehem of Judea, for thus it is written by the prophet: 6 ‘But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, Are not the least among the rulers of Judah; For out of you shall come a Ruler Who will shepherd My people Israel.’” 7 Then Herod, when he had secretly called the wise men, determined from them what time the star appeared. 8 And he sent them to Bethlehem and said, “Go and search carefully for the young Child, and when you have found Him, bring back word to me, that I may come and worship Him also.” 9 When they heard the king, they departed; and behold, the star which they had seen in the East went before them, till it came and stood over where the young Child was.

From these verses, the Star of Bethlehem has to fulfill 9 qualifications:
a. The star has to indicate birth (2:2)
b. It has to indicate Kingship ( 2:2)
c. Has to point to Jewish Scripture (2:1)
d. Rising in east (2:2)
e. Appears at an exact time
f. Herod didn’t know when it appeared ( 2:3)
g. Endured over a considerable period of time (2:2, 9)
h. Went ahead of magi as they traveled south to Bethlehem ( 2:9)
i. The star has to Stop! Over Bethlehem ( 2:9).  This is the strange one.

So here is what Larson concluded:  It couldn’t be a meteor, which doesn’t rise in the east, and it isn’t long-lasting. It couldn’t be a comet because comet omens are perceived as foretelling doom. But Jesus’ birth is good news. Also, there were no comets in 3-2 BC (those were the conception/ birthdate, see below). It couldn’t be a nova—a spectacular exploding star--Herod wouldn’t ask “when,” because his scientific advisors (also astronomers, though I suspect not as smart as the magi) would’ve told him—along with their “interpretation.” Also, there were no novas for 3-2BC,the estimated time of Jesus' birth.

Based on what we just excluded, and from (f) above, the “right star” wasn’t spectacular—but it must have been moderately bright. It so happens, a conjunction of planets, or planet/star, would fulfill that. Larson decided, why not look at Jupiter, the King Planet (as it is so-called—and, it is the largest in the planet system). If Jupiter is involved, it would help us meet requirement (b) above as well. As it so happens, Jupiter, the King planet, was conjoined to Regulus (the King Star, how “coincidental”) in September of 3 BC. Since a magus had likely seen this 2-3 times before (this conjunction happens every 12 years), that by itself is not a big enough deal to get the Magi excited enough to pack up their camels and travel to see what's happening. Nor is it a big enough deal for Herod to hear from his scientific advisors.  But later, as we shall see, that is the date of the conception of Jesus by the Holy Spirit into Mary.

A scientific note here: planets sometimes reverse (“retrograde”) motion (like passing a car slowly on the freeway, it seems to move backward, so when earth swings past a planet, that planet seems to move backward). It so happens, Jupiter is in retrograde in 3-2BC in a very peculiar path—it passes Regulus, then reverses course, passes again, then reverses course, passes a 3rd time! This would have been exciting by itself, but additionally, if you draw this movement, it forms a halo above Regulus. Thus we have a triple-proof coronation of a king! (King planet, king star, and halo). Item “b” above is definitely solved, and we have a base "star" for further study.

Now, what about Jewishness--(c) above? A little Scriptural background will get us toward the answer: Gen 49:9 says, in summary, (1) out of tribe of Judah would come a King of all kings. (2) Judah is compared to a lion. Well, why not look and see if anything is happening in the constellation Leo the Lion? (By the way, good astronomers in those days knew many faiths' Scriptures.)  

Now let's talk about Jesus' birth.  Is it also confirmed by the stars?  Begin with Revelation 12:1-5, a prophecy of Jesus' birth.  A “great sign appeared in heaven;” a woman “clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet,” who was pregnant and due to bear a child “to rule all nations with a rod of iron.” She is threatened by a dragon wanting to kill her child. This has long been interpreted to be about Jesus and the Virgin Mary—and opposed by a dragon--Satan working through Herod. Compare these verses with how the stars told us all about it:  It So Happens that as Jupiter begins to crown Regulus, an interesting event happens in the constellation Leo—and behind Leo is—guess what—the constellation Virgo (Virgin). Virgo is rising, clothed in the sun. The moon at the time (within September, 3 BC, see below) is new, so it was under her (Virgo’s) feet! Note the Scriptures above.  An amazing prophecy come true in many "coincidental" points! You must see the DVD to appreciate this amazing point!

As it turns out, the stars tie together the Conception of Jesus by the Holy Spirit and the Birth. How do we know? Because 9 months after the event in the last paragraph, Jupiter is finished crowning Regulus; and has moved to conjoin with Venus, making the brightest conjunction in the world (planetariums love to show this conjunction). This was the only time in those magi’s lifetime for this conjunction. If the magi were thinking about all the activity just noted from September, this bright combo practically screamed out, “Mount Up!”

The bright planet conjunction happened in June, 2 BC.  Thus, Jesus was born in June, 2 BC.Yes, it "should" have been 0 BC/AD. Medieval dating experts were good, but not that good.

And the magi began planning a trip.

The next several months after June 2 BC are speculative, as opposed to the Keplerian rock-hard scientific facts above. Let’s assume the magi were, within a few months, starting their trip. We’re assuming the magi, from the East, were located at Babylon, a home base for the best astronomers of those days. After a couple more months, they would arrive at Jerusalem asking “where?” They tell Herod the details about September, 3 BC and June, 2 BC, then get sent south to Bethlehem—only 5 miles away, please note that.

It So Happens that in December of 2 BC (thus allowing 6 months from Christ’s birth to their arrival at Jerusalem), Jupiter is in the sky south of them from Jerusalem-- thus it continues leading them toward Bethlehem.

This means 8 of 9 requirements above are fulfilled:
a.The first conjunction signified birth by its association with Virgo “birthing” the new moon at her feet (in the tradition of the day, a woman typically gave birth downward).
b.The Planet of King’s halo-coronation of the Star of Kings signified kingship.
c.The triple conjunction began with the Jewish New Year and took place within Leo the Lion, showing a connection with the Jewish tribe of Judah (and prophecies of the Jewish Messiah).
d.Jupiter rises in the east.
e.The conjunctions appeared at precise, identifiable times.
f.Herod was unaware of these things; they were astronomical events which had significance only when explained by experts.
g.The planet/star events took place over a span of time sufficient for the Magi to see them both from the East and upon their arrival in Jerusalem.
h.Jupiter was ahead of the Magi as they traveled south from Jerusalem to Bethlehem

But Jupiter somehow stopped, since it stayed over Bethlehem for the time they traveled there. (This is what brings the scoffers out). There is a simple explanation for the scoffers.  As it so happens, when a planet (or star) goes to the end of an arc and begins to retrograde, it has to “stop” briefly. (Picture an elliptical arc, say the outline of the end of an egg, say the egg is standing up—as you draw the edge of the egg in your mind, from the left, the arc, or egg outline, is moving down. At the right, it moves upward. But for a brief period, at the bottom, it isn’t moving up or moving down—so it seems to stop). It So Happens that Jupiter was “at the bottom”—just before retrograde, it “stopped”—and that day was December 25, BC 2! That must’ve been the date of their arrival to the toddler Jesus, in the house. That’s a Significant date—not for the birth (by which we mistakenly celebrate it), but for the celebration of worship and presenting gifts to Our Lord.

Thank You, God, that your planets, stars, and constellations speak of Your great Immanuel! With perfect prediction. Jews knew the night sky well (they had no light pollution, no real air pollution, they slept on their roofs a lot—knew the constellations).
FOLLOW MY BLOG AT EASTER: THE EXACT DATE OF THE CRUCIFIXION OF CHRIST—FROM THE STARS.

What Happens to Us Right After We Die? Scripture Has a Surprising Answer

Perhaps the most important question of all time, to a lot of people, is, What happens after we die?  Is there life after death?   This question has puzzled mankind since Adam, and there are many different theories suggested.  Here are a few below, mostly from groups Americans are familiar with: 

1     

  Atheists:  Nothing happens after you die.  You don’t have a soul or spirit, so your body decays, and that’s all there is. 

  Buddhists and some other Eastern religions:  You are reincarnated into a different creature.   You simply go on living in a different form. 

3Jehovah’s Witnesses: You don’t have a soul or spirit, like the atheistic view.  However, you live on in the perfect memory of God.  In the resurrection, God will re-create you to be once again the exact person you were, character flaws and all.  Saved people will live forever on a paradise Earth, a re-created Garden of Eden.  A top crew of 144,000 Christians actually go to heaven.  While most say they are not in the 144,000, they’re satisfied about a paradise Earth awaiting them. 

Even among professed Christians, there still are different answers.

  Seventh-day Adventists:  You have a soul, and when you die, your soul sleeps, until the resurrection, when it’s awakened and then it joins your body and goes to heaven or hell 

5Roman Catholics:  If you’re classified as a saint, your soul goes directly to heaven.  If you’re a “regular” Catholic, you can expect to go to purgatory.  It is neither hell nor heaven, but it’s where somebody who will ultimately have salvation can be purged of their sins.  In medieval Catholicism, it was viewed as almost like hell, full of torture and suffering.  But supposedly, they believed, after they spent a time there (whose length depends on what kind of person you were),  they could go on to heaven.  Modern Catholicism has taken much of the sting out of purgatory—now it is viewed as not pleasant, but the cleansing from sin can be done without the torture and suffering—for most people.  But someone who isn’t, by Catholic definition, a Christian, they go directly to hell after they die. 

  Most Protestants:   whether liberal or evangelical, they believe that a saved Christian, once he dies, his soul goes straight to heaven.  His body goes to the grave, and will rejoin his soul at the resurrection.  Unsaved souls go to hell.  Liberal protestants believe that most people will be saved, while evangelicals have leaned toward a fewer number, though less assertive about that lately. 

As you can see, views differ even among those who claim to be Christian.  And surprisingly, the view of a denomination changes over time--which it shouldn't, relying their view on an unchanging Bible.  Now you may argue that the differences are expected, since no scientific evidence can be obtained to prove one or the other.  You may even believe the current cultural icon statement:  “Whatever you believe is true for you.”   But the hard reality is, if you claim to be Christian, you’re covenanted to the Bible as God’s infallible Word on the subject.  And God is rather clear in the Bible on this subject, as He would be, since Scripture claims in various places that He loves His children—so He would tell us “where we’re moving to.”  

So, let’s study what the Word says on the “moving” issue.  Let’s promise ourselves that what the Scripture says is more important than what our church says.  That’s because, unfortunately, NONE of the six theories above is correct—not even the mainline Christian ones.  That’s because the correct doctrine of the intermediate state has either been warped or lost.  But it’s definitely in Scripture.  Studying that is the ultimate focus of this blog.

In a nutshell, here is the overall spoiler summary, before I narrow the focus:  When we die, our bodies go to dust, but our souls live on.  Those souls don’t immediately go to heaven or hell.  They all go to an intermediate state called hades.  Now, you must throw out meanings that you may have in your head about this word "hades," and accept Scriptural indication as, simply, a waiting place, the temporary realm of the dead.  Hades is not hell.  Hell is a different Greek word. Hades is divided, in Scripture, into two parts.  The lower region, where the unsaved souls go, is a dark and gloomy place, where they are suffering in some degree of heat, and keenly aware of the lake of fire nearby—which is where they eventually will be cast (that’s hell).  Their temporary time in hades is a time of great sorrow and inner turmoil.  It is not as bad as hell—but it is a very hot, painful and anxious place.

In hades also there is a region of the saved, the righteous, who are escorted there by angels.  This is called “paradise” and “Abraham’s bosom”—it is a heavenly place, but it’s not the ultimate heaven.  The righteous can fellowship with other saved souls (the same cannot be asserted for the unsaved).  They feel in some way the presence of Christ—but they are not in heaven, where He is.  

No one can cross from one region of hades to the other—the unsaved may recognize somebody in the saved group, but can’t “switch sides” no matter what.  There is no opportunity for salvation beyond death.   THIS life decides your fate for eternity, my friend.  No purgatory to "work things out."

Hades, again, is temporary--until the resurrection of everyone for the Judgment. At Christ’s return, hades is emptied.  All will be judged.  In Judgment the body is miraculously put back together and joins the soul.  Then God sends His obedient children to heaven, and the rest to hell—for eternity.  Thus, after temporary hades, heaven and hell are for eternity. 

So no one goes straight to the final destination when they die—they go to a “waiting place,” they go to one of the two sectors of hades.  Scripture is clear—hades is not for the purpose of changing final destination.  Your final destination is fixed during this life.  We are now “probies,” as it were.  Our life on earth’s main reason is a testing period for where we spend eternity.   

Let’s get to Scripture to back up this summary.  I will focus on the intermediate state, hades.  The most detailed explanation of life just beyond the grave is found in Jesus’ account of the rich man and Lazarus.  See Luke 16:22-31, where Jesus says: 

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.’”

What do we see?  

1)      They can see one another and talk to one another— the rich man in the lower region of hades can see how nice the previously poor man has it now in the good section—and Abraham talks to him. Thus, it’s reasonable to conclude they’re both in the same place, but in seriously different environments. 

2)      The previously poor man is in “Abraham’s bosom.” He is “comforted.”  The rich man is “afar off”—a “great gulf fixed”-- in another region.  Yet they’re in the same place.  The rich man in the suffering region then becomes the focus of Scripture.  He is “in torments.”  He “cries out” in agony.  Thirst is a serious problem, since a flame is nearby. 

3)      He is well aware of his previous life, since he remembered his brothers and wanted to see them saved.  This adds to his mental anxiety while there.

4)      As vv 27-31 show, there is no way that someone in the lower region can warn those still alive.  Thus, seances would be meaningless, today as well as then.  

5)      Jesus is tough on the man who is eventually to be cast to hell:   

a.       He is willing to let him suffer, acknowledging as He does, “you are tormented” --without relieving him.   

b.      When the man complains of his suffering, Jesus even taunts him, reminding him of the reversal of roles for the two of them—and telling him, too bad, he can’t change his fate.

c.      Abraham, too, lacks empathy as well . 

For those who want to cast these verses aside:  This is not a parable (since it has named Lazarus, and parables don’t give names).  This is God’s truth for the intermediate state, what happens right after we die.  Other things He says in Scripture are consistent with this doctrine, as we’ll see below.  

Other supporting Scriptures for the intermediate state: 

1. Luke 23:43 records Jesus’ words on the Cross to the dying and just-saved thief alongside:  

  And Jesus said to him, “Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.”

So, if the saved poor man’s first stopover after death, from Luke 16, is “Abraham’s bosom,” as we saw above, and if the first stopover for the just-saved thief is in “paradise,” we have to conclude that paradise is another name for Abraham’s bosom.  Paradise is not another word for heaven.  We also surmise that Abraham’s bosom, or paradise, is in hades.  Neither person goes directly to heaven.  They both go to hades, the intermediate state. Jesus was in hades too.  Remember, that’s not hell. 

2. Matthew 12:40 and parts of Acts 2:22-27:  

For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth

“Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs…you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death; ²⁴ whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that He should be held by it. ²⁵ For David says concerning Him:  Moreover my flesh also will rest in hope.²⁷ For You will not leave my soul in hades, nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption.

As we also proved above, Jesus did not die and go straight to heaven; nor did He go to hell, called “gehenna” in Greek, the lake of fire, a different Greek word.  As it clearly says here, His death would be followed by a short time “in the heart of the earth;” that doesn't sound like heaven, right?  Hades is located deep in earth.   His soul did not remain in hades long—three days and nights. 

Perhaps your Bible uses "hell" when it should be called "hades."  It also uses "hell" in some versions for Greek "gehenna" and "tartarus."  Those, however, are three separate places, so the English words should be different, rather than combining them all as "hell."  Blame William Tyndale.  He took three Greek words, meaning different things, and translated them all "hell" in English.  A proper modern translation would catch this. 

These truths about the intermediate state were so universally believed by the earliest Christians (they knew their Greek) that it became part of the original Apostles’ Creed:  I believe in God the Father Almighty…and in Jesus Christ…was crucified, dead and buried.  He descended to hades (the Greek word); on the third day rose from the dead…Jesus did not go to hell, but gave hope to the waiting godly souls in hades.

3. John 14:1-3:  

“Let not your heart be troubled; you believe in God, believe also in Me. ² In My Father’s house are many mansions;  if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. ³ And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also.

Note the underlined phrase.  This proves that when the righteous die, they do not go immediately to heaven to be with Jesus.  No, He has to “come again” and pick us up, and then we go to heaven.  If we were already in heaven, He would not have to “come again” to get us.  No, we are in the heart of the earth, in hades, waiting for “pick up.” The pick up will be better than ziplining, better than being an Amazon drone, I’ll bet.  

4. John 5:28-29:

Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice 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.

Thus, both groups will “come forth” to the Judgment at the same time (your denomination may not believe this "judgement at the same time" idea--even though it seems explicit here).  So hades will be emptied all at once.  If we’re already in heaven, as often taught, the resurrection would be no big deal--since we're "already there."  But it IS a big deal.  It gets us from hades to heaven, not from heaven to heaven with a body.  

Hopefully these many Scriptures will be convincing.  But, you ask, if all the six groups and theories I named at the beginning are wrong, are there any groups who still believe this Scriptural way that I'm laying forth? Well, many Mennonites, some Brethren, some Amish, some in the Restoration movement, some conservative Anglicans still teach it right. 

The fact is, teaching on the intermediate state has gotten dropped because it tried to get as far away from the Catholics’ false teaching on purgatory.  Purgatory teaches that (a) the Intermediate State can cleanse your sins and (b) it can change final status. Double False.  Scripture shows that hades (the real Intermediate State) does not change final status, as we saw in Luke.  The sincere pleadings of the rich man were greeted coldly.  The rich man encountered Jesus not as merciful, but as Judge.  Remember, few are saved (Matthew 7:14).  We are shocked and sometimes uncomfortable about seeing this "negative side" of God.  But He doesn't think as we do.  We cannot imagine, for instance, how deep is God’s hatred about sin.  If you’re unsaved when you go into hades, you’re unsaved when you go out.  Period.  There is no Scriptural basis for “cleansing from sin” in that state either.  The idea that you can purge your own sin is completely false and anti-Biblical, as Scriptural points out, and I point out in many blogs. Jesus has done that cleansing from sin for us. The “works vs faith” argument was what kick-started the Reformation—a just movement in its beginning, but it went to wrong theology on some points to get away from looking Catholic. 

Next, Catholicism teaches that there is a special status for those classified as “saints”—they get to go straight to heaven.  Everybody else has to go to purgatory to “work off” their sins.  False.  Scripture is clear that everyone saved is a saint.  There are no “status” Christians.  Philippians 1:1 says:   

Paul and Timothy, bondservants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with the bishops  and deacons. 

 If saints are only the “status” Christians, why is Paul calling every Christian a “saint,” and, oh yes, let’s not forget the bishops and deacons.  How do you explain that?  

John Calvin, who formulated many Protestant doctrines (not my favorite person, as I have a blog on him), dropped the intermediate state doctrine.  So both Catholics and most Protestants have it wrong.  You’ve got to read Scripture for yourselves, folks. 

If you want to know more about what Scripture really says on How Do You Get Saved, so you can graduate from earth to heaven during this “probie” status, you need to know that Catholics and many Protestants have that wrong too.   I have a blog just on salvation, and another on initial and final salvation.  Smarter, though, would be to read the Gospels over and over, noting what Jesus says on that very subject.  He is quite clear.

Acknowledgement:  David Bercot, CD, “Life After Death.” Scroll Publishing

Scripture Indicates That Believer's Water Baptism is an Essential Requirement of Salvation

In this CD, Mr. Bercot takes a clarifying look at what Scripture has to say about water baptism. I should add that when he sees doctrinal controversy between denominations (such as on this topic), he resolves it by looking at Scripture, and what the early church (pre-325 AD) believed about it. Their beliefs were more likely backed by Scripture, since that church was closer to the apostles--and they were a church that the Lord made powerful--so it’s likely He didn't see any deviant doctrine there.

The early church believed, from Scripture, that in baptism, the following things happened: (1) all of a person’s prior sins are washed away; (2) a person is born again through baptism of water and the Holy Spirit; 3) through baptism, a person becomes a member of Christ’s church Because of the importance of these, we must conclude that they believed that the salvation process is not complete without baptism.

What does Scripture say? Let’s start with John 3:5:

Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

Does this not say that “born of water” is water baptism? Even in the Greek, the word translated "water" simply refers to physical water. Does it not clearly say that water baptism is essential in being born again?—and that without it, you cannot enter the kingdom of God?  (There are extenuating circumstances, of course).

Mark 16:16 says:

He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

This clearly requires baptism to "be saved," or to be in heaven and escape Judgment.  I might add, at this point, that all these verses assume believer baptism--i.e., as an adult.

Acts 2:36-38:

Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.” 37 Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” 38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit

In verses 37-38, Peter has the ultimate evangelistic opportunity. Does he say what all of us evangelical Protestants have been taught, to pray to let Jesus into their heart? No; after they’ve been shown who Jesus is in earlier verses, assuming they believe in Him, what they need to do to be saved…is…(1)repentance and (2) baptism. (He emphasizes the importance of baptism, saying “every one of you” needs to do it). These additional two steps will give them remission of sins.

Acts 22:16 was when Saul was saved, becoming Paul, and was told:

…And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.’

Baptism washes away our sins. That’s very important, is it not? Without it, with the guilt of sins on us, how can you get to heaven? (Again, allowance is made elsewhere for those who cannot be baptized.) Note the urgent tones that they should be baptized right away.
The early church fathers felt that baptism is important enough that they still insisted that a man who was saved, immediately imprisoned, then martyred fulfilled the required baptism—by having a baptism of blood.

Galatians 3:27:

For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

“Baptized into Christ” is water baptism, as Romans 6:2-4 defines it:

How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? 3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

As you can see, in immersion water baptism you are experiencing a type of the death and resurrection of our Lord.
And what of the phrase “put on Christ" in the Galatians verse? When you read Romans 13:14, it means wrapping yourself in godly thoughts and not thinking about sinful ones. But it’s also “clothe yourself with Christ,” associated with Genesis 3 when God clothed Adam with skins of an animal being sacrificed after he sinned. That blood being shed to provide the skin was the beginning of God’s plan for His Son, the Lamb, whose blood was shed once for all. The animal sacrifice meant protection from the dire effects of sin. Baptism—and faith in what Christ did--are the means to these desirable and necessary goals in the New Covenant. So necessary that without them, we’re not saved.

Titus 3:5: …but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit

The washing speaks of baptism. Baptism results in regeneration, becoming a new creation. And, as Jesus put it (John 3:3), that’s essential go to heaven. And it clearly says, “He saved us, through the washing of regeneration (through the baptism) and renewing of the Holy Spirit.”

Hebrews 10:22:

let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.

“Pure water” is baptism. Baptism helps gives us a full assurance of faith and enables us to draw near to Him.

I Peter 3:21 uses the term “antitype.” That’s a New Testament fulfillment from an Old Testament prefigure (called a type):

There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. 

This bluntly points out that baptism, and Christ’s resurrection, save us. Of course, in context, and thinking of my “Paul v James” blogs, to be saved at the end, you need baptism combined with true faith, repentance, and obedience. Baptism gives you a “good conscience toward God.” The Old Testament prefigure here is Noah (see I Peter 3:20), whose ark in the water protected against the judgment and saved eight souls.

Again, EVERY ONE OF THESE VERSES IS DIRECTED TO BELIEVERS WHO ARE MAKING A CHOICE TO BE BAPTIZED. There are no baptisms of babies in Scripture that we know of.

There are other "types" in the Old Testament. Consider I Corinthians 10:1-2's comments on the Jews passing through the Red Sea:

Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, 2 all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea.

Was crossing the water of the Red Sea (a type of baptism) merely a “symbol” of their salvation from the Egyptians? No, crossing the water DID save them! Then why do most evangelistic churches use the weak word “symbol” when they explain baptism? Using the Red Sea type, baptism completes our salvation. I use the word “complete” because other things of faith were involved too, all of which together ensured their salvation. They had already stepped out in faith to follow God’s leader Moses. In faith they believed the ten plagues were a message from God. In faith they obediently protected themselves from death at Passover, when they obeyed the instruction to put lamb’s blood on the doorposts. And when they packed their belongings and marched out into the desert—that was a great step of faith, since a sensible man would never expect to stay alive long in the desert. All of these things, faith plus obedience, ensured their salvation, but the baptism of passing through the Red Sea completed the job—but all this was still only at the beginning of their journey. They still had to place faith in God throughout the journey.

Another Old Testament figure of baptism—mentioned several times by early Christians—was Naaman, the leper. In II Kings 5, Naaman was purified of leprosy when he was baptized in the Jordan. This was a symbol of what baptism can do for us regarding the leprosy of sin. We are cleansed through it.

If you’re thinking, “surely there was some group who didn’t hold to this view of baptism, who thought it was just symbolic,” you’re right—the Gnostics felt that way. Of course, you also need to know what else they believed--that the creation of the earth and mankind was done by an inferior god, a second god, so his creation was flawed and beyond redemption, so they concluded that flesh cannot be saved. They did not believe in the resurrection of the body—you can’t get a perfect result from an imperfect body. Jesus couldn’t have come in the flesh, since He wasn’t imperfect, as all flesh is. Thus, they maintained, there was no God Incarnate. No one can be “reborn” through physical substances (since all such are evil)—like water. So baptism has no power to save, they said, it’s just a symbol of what’s happened in the spirit.  So say the Gnostics.  Are these views corrupt, or what?

Isn’t it terrible that so many of us Protestants agree with this strange group about baptism, that it's just a "symbol?" So our historical support is this deviant bunch. If you agree with the Gnostics, you're also saying all the church fathers, as holy a group as you ever want to meet in heaven, men who were taught by the apostles, were dead wrong. Which group do you want to follow—the Gnostics or the church fathers? Here again, though, our beliefs should be founded on Scripture: Can we argue against all the above Scriptural passages? Not without doing twisty reasoning, instead of simple, literal reasoning.

How did the church move away from this doctrine, if it’s correct? Why either baptize babies or, the opposite, say that's it's a "symbol?" I think partly because the church reacted to people’s desire for convenience—people wanted to feel assurance of salvation, wanted a simple “formula.” So when the Catholic church was forming its doctrines, they came up with a convenient formula: do the sacraments, or ordinances, and you shall be saved. Infant baptism came about because of the high infant mortality rates; people wanted assurance that their baby was saved when he died. Also, when an entire nation was defeated by a “Christian” nation, it was required that the entire nation’s children would be baptized. None of these changes were Scripturally based--they are mechanical devices, not a choice being made. This “mechanical” religion requires no relationship with Christ and no day-to-day holiness, as Scripture demands (see the “Paul vs James” blogs). Expanding “the kingdom of God,” as they called it, by sword, by expansion, by alliances with pagans, came naturally to them as well. Scripture explaining the truth of baptism became hidden, in an impossible language (Latin, which most people of that day couldn't understand), so darkness reigned.

When pietism (late 1600s, beginning in Germany) and the Great Awakening revival (1700s, in England and New England) came along, they placed their emphasis for salvation on the conversion experience. They called the spiritual awakenings the “new birth.” In their countries’ state churches, everyone had already been baptized—as babies--but many grew up dead spiritually. Rather than preach on the negative topic, “why baptism as a baby wasn’t good enough now,” the revivalists wanted to see as many people turn their life around as possible, and make the salvation easy to get to. So it was the decision for Jesus, that was it.  Oh, yeah, you should be baptized as a witness to show to everyone that you're saved. 

Now I again warn you: Keep in mind this extremely important caution (read the “Paul v James” blogs): Don’t assume you can get baptized, and you’re saved and done.  A continuing saved relationship with Christ, following His commands (and baptism was one of them) are necessary. “Inward” baptism—of the Spirit—was essential as well, not just “outward” baptism.

When you want to submit to the Lord Jesus AND when you are dunked in the water, then your sins are washed away. You need both. If you do the outward baptism without the inward desire for submission and cleansing--you’re still spiritually dead.  In any event, you need to have an abiding relationship with Christ so you don't lose salvation.

Acknowledgements:  Dave Bercot CD, "Baptism"

Things You Need to Know About John Calvin

John Calvin was born in 1509.  He had tremendous influence on the founding and growth of America, yet he never set foot here. In fact he was a Frenchman, living in Switzerland, and died 43 years before the founding of Jamestown, the first colony established here.  He is considered to be a great theologian, but he went to a famous French university and took courses to be a lawyer.  He never studied religion beyond the basics at the university. 

While there, he was fascinated with the Greco-Roman philosophy of Stoicism.  Stoicism was the dominant belief system of educated Romans at the peak of their empire.  It’s not a “religion,” per se, but it does teach anti-Christian values, and our earliest Church fathers debated against it frequently.  It teaches that everything in the universe is predestined, and each of us has been given a role to play by fate.    We had no choice in that determination.   According to them, our goal in life is:  don’t complain--just play our role well.  Regarding adversities, we should rise above excessive emotion, and accept with resignation what fate has assigned to us.  In 1532 Calvin put together a commentary on Seneca, the leading Stoic in Rome.  His commentary had a twist—he tied together (?) the philosophy of Stoicism and the teachings of Christ. 

In 1534 he became a Protestant Reformer, at the peak of Luther’s popularity in Germany.  Because the Catholics were hunting down Reformers, Calvin fled to Geneva, Switzerland, which became ruled by Protestants.   The leaders of Geneva were impressed with Calvin’s keen mind and energy, and made him the leader of the Reformation there. 

He began "improving" on Luther's doctrine, and came to believe that he was selected by God to bring God’s church back to his idea of “correct” doctrine. His greatest attribute was a singular confidence—and a massive ego.  To quote him:  "I know, beyond doubt, that what (he says) is coming from God.”  He was determined not to equivocate, or change, his doctrine as he had seen Luther do over the years.  We’ll see, later on, where that takes him.

Let’s discuss Calvin’s doctrine.   In 1536 he wrote the first edition of "The Institutes of Christian Religion."  He expanded it in later editions—but didn’t change what it taught.  Its most-publicized aspect was its teaching on predestination.  According to Calvin, before God ever created the earth, He predetermined that Adam would fall, and all of his descendants would inherit his sin and guilt.  But in He placed all Adam’s descendants all through history in two categories:  He chose individuals, before they were even born, amounting to a very small portion of mankind, to be the elect, to be given eternal life in heaven.  And thereby He chose everyone else to be tormented forever in hell.  This doctrine is also known as “double predestination,” since with two groups, automatically those who aren’t selected in one group fall into the other.  Now keep in mind two things:  (1) nobody can change these two elections (thus you can see the Stoic influence);  these were pre-ordained before you were born.  (2) God’s selection was completely arbitrary—done without regard to any works, good or bad, or how we live our lives.  That’s because we’re all totally depraved, and completely unable to come to God without His initiation.   Any faith in God that you have is only because He randomly gave it to you.  A person’s lack of faith would be simply because God didn’t select that person to receive it—that person was thus predestined for hell. 

Does this doctrine sound like it reflects God's personality to you? 

You would think that few people would accept this philosophy, because it doesn’t line up with God’s personality in the Bible.  But people grabbed onto the nice collateral idea that the elect can know beyond doubt that they are the elect, and you cannot possibly lose your salvation.   He got a huge following—from those who felt like “the elect.” Not so much from those who perceived themselves as non-elect. 

Another aspect of his theology was, he didn’t see the difference between Christ’s moral teachings and the Old Testament Law.  Thus, he felt that communities should be theocratic, like Israel. Old Testament Law should rule.  That means everyone, whether elect or not, needed to be brought into Old Testament rules.  He decided infant baptism of all was mandatory, to keep the infant, if it died, from going to Hell (even though that was not a specific Biblical doctrine).  The Anabaptists, who believed in believer’s baptism only (as does Scripture), were thus heretical, to Calvin.  His approach to them?  Torture them, get them to recant.  They need to accept the truth.  (Luther had the same attitude in Germany, but less passionate about pursuing it).  In Calvin’s Institutes, it further spells out that every nation should be governed only by the elect.  The job of civic government was to protect the true faith, and regulate the lives of its citizens so they follow God’s law.  Even the non-elect had to “toe the line.”  If the nation does what was right, God would prosper it.  If the nation was experiencing military or economic decline, or natural disaster, it must be that God was punishing that nation for something they’re doing wrong.  The state mandated church attendance was for all, and the city elders’ job includes observing carefully the private lives of all its attendees to make sure they’re living in bounds with God’s Law. They would even ask your neighbors about you to find out "the truth." The church could excommunicate those who strayed, and then the state also would punish them, the worst punishment for the worst sins being hanging, burning, or even drawn and quartered. 

Membership on the church rolls was limited to the elect.   To keep non-elects out of membership, anyone who claimed they were the elect had to give a detailed testimony to the church demonstrating that they believed all of Calvin’s teaching, and that they had a conversion period in their lives—they usually related to the church how it took many years for that conversion to reach salvation levels.  Keep in mind, the New Testament procedure was, you had a conversion, it might be instantaneous upon preaching, and you repented—and you got baptized.  The baptism was the public announcement of your salvation—not a public detailed and verbal confession as Calvin demanded.   

Further, God has assigned you a vocation in life.  Your job is to excel in it, since you were serving God.  (This idea is one of the foundations of a very successful economic Capitalism.)  Wealth and prosperity were signs of God’s approval of your efforts.  Poverty is an indication of God’s judgment.  (How do you line this up with Jesus’ statement, “Blessed are the poor”?  And what about His scathing rebukes of the rich?) 

Geneva under Calvin was a dream come true for his followers—but a reign of terror for everybody else.  In one year after taking charge, he drew up a Genevan catechism, the accepted doctrine.  They had to promise to receive it as the one, the only true doctrine.  Anyone who failed to do so was banished from the city.  If that happened, the city’s fathers took over the homes that they were forced to leave behind.  Very profitable for them.  Thus, overall, they had a religious police-state.  Anybody guilty of even the smallest infraction would be reported. They even interrogated children about their parents.  Calvin made many enemies, but smashed every instance of dissent.  He was so confident in his correctness, that he didn’t believe in showing any mercy to “heretics”—defined as those who had a different item in their theology than his.  People were regularly tortured, imprisoned or exiled who dared to differ.  There were many executions.  In 1546, Jacques Gruet, not a threat to Calvin, who simply criticized him in private papers, was hideously tortured until he “confessed”—and then he was beheaded!    When it appeared, later, that Calvin had more opposition, he requested the city council to declare that only his Institutes were “the pure doctrine of the gospel” and “could not be criticized by any citizen.”      

 His huge ego reached its most grotesque result in the Michael Servetus case. Servetus was a gifted and well-known Spanish Renaissance man, but he questioned  the Trinity, the infant baptism, and predestination.  Calvin thought he would do Servetus a favor, he felt, by sending him a copy of the Institutes to straighten him out.  Servetus had the "audacity" to annotate his own critique of the Institutes, and sent it back.  This began a flurry of arrogant letter-writings back and forth.  Finally Calvin said in a letter to another friend, “If I consent, he (Servetus) will come here...if he comes here, and my authority is worth anything, I will never permit him to depart alive.”  There never was a doubt about Calvin’s authority—no imprisonment, no exile, no torture or beheading went without his consent.  He was called “the pope of Geneva.”  Servetus made the mistake of naively wandering in.  He was arrested.  Calvin himself prepared the 38 criminal counts against Servetus, at least one of which was “insulting Calvin’s authority.”  Servetus did not have the right to an attorney, since as Calvin said, he could “lie without one.”  At trial he was not allowed to explain or defend any of his points.  He was sentenced to be burned at the stake alive.  He was chained to a stake.  The authorities then piled wood around him, half of which were green (which takes longer to burn, prolonging the agony of suffering).   The crowd watched in fascination.  Keep in mind: Calvin, by his position and by consenting, was guilty, in our courts, of conspiracy to murder.  This was similar to David’s crime (II Samuel 11:14-17)—yet in the Bible it was just as bad as murder--it was called murder in II Samuel 12:9. 

Unlike David, though, Calvin  was unrepentant.  Several months later he opined that he was “indifferent” to the hand-wringers who would want him to be apologetic.   Those who got weak when it comes to justice for blasphemers were guilty themselves, he wrote. 

In 1556 many in opposition had a demonstration against him.  They were arrested and sentenced to death.  This death sentence was the grisliest to date—they were drawn and quartered.  This was the epitome of the cruelest punishment possible.  Most countries of the time reserved it for the greatest crimes, like treason.  But to the Genevans, the worst crime was disagreeing with Calvin’s “words from God.”  They were first hung in such a way that their neck would not be broken.  They just hung there, strangling.  They were still alive when they would be cut down, then cut open at the waist and all their entrails pulled out and burned in front of their eyes.  Then they were finally beheaded.      

So, was the murderer Calvin (based on the Gruet and Servetus cases above) a believer in Christ?  Based on Scripture, as I point out in other blogs, that means, did he follow Christ’s commandments and abide in Him (I John 3:24)?  Unless he repented at the end, I think not; I believe he ended up unsaved.  No one could consent to these unimaginable things and claim they “love the brethren” and love God, which believers must do (I John 4:8).   
Now the big question:  Are you a follower of Calvin’s predestination theology?  Most Americans who call themselves "Christian" actually are--most don't know its details or the details of its founder.  I don't doubt that most are really Christian.  But when you think about it, do you really agree that people are predestined to hell by God, by random selection, not based on any of their works or faith? Is that what God is to you?

But, here’s the bigger question--can the theology of clearly an unsaved man be accurate?   Can the theology of an unsaved man get you to heaven?  Think about that.

Acknowledgements:  David Bercot, CD, “Geneva.”