The Real Problem is Islam and True Believers.

real-islam-bomb-fuse

Cartoon credit, John R. Houk© March 1, 2013

A friend of mine asked me for a response to this article he read on the net.  Here was my response.

Well, he does what we all do and addresses the issue from his presuppositions. I did the same thing when I wrote my article on the topic. I disagree with him on some points. I think he, like so many others, misses the elephant in the room. Fundamentalist Islam is an evil ideology. Even the so-called moderate Islam, is false and satanic, just like Mormonism, and any other false religion. The only Islam that is not a danger to us is the Islam that doesn’t adhere to the Quran, Hadiths, or Islamic scripture. Just like liberal Christians, Jack-Mormons, and Roman Catholics who are RCC in name only.  The main difference is that Non-violent Muslim voice seem to be in the minority.

In the article there is the lack of a solution to the problem. We as Christians, should be wise and compassionate. It is fine to love people and to want them to be free from oppression. Noting that, why do we have policies that directly prejudice the Christians from those countries, by keeping them out? Why is it our responsibility to bring the Muslims here? Why are their brother Muslims not taking them in? Why are we being guilted by the media and shamed by liberal Christians for being unloving? Seems like Satan’s opinion via his servants is that we should bring them in. Why can’t they stay and fight against the so called Islamic extremists who are ruining their homes? I think we should bring in the Christians who are fleeing certain death. I think we could talk about bringing in women, children, elderly, and handicapped people fleeing from the true Muslims. We would have to put them in internment camps and secure them until it could be determined if they are a threat. If we could determine that they are not fundamentalist Muslims, then I don’t have a problem letting them in through the normal immigration process.

The claims that the alien with Israel was treated well with no other conditions is wrong. When people wanted the rights of an Israelite, they had to become circumcised, believe the God of Israel, and obey Israel’s laws. They became naturalized Israelites. Other sojourners were treated well as long as they peacefully obeyed the laws and were not enemies of Israel. Israel never accepted an enemy in the camp blindly and identified them as, “refugees.” This kind of madness is pure liberal delusion. Fundamentalist Islam is the enemy.  People who are, “true believers” are the enemy of America and her citizens.  Christians are not the only citizens of America. We have the duty of warning people in love that they about to cut everyone’s collective throats. It is not unloving to keep out murdering satanists. Since you can’t easily tell the difference between a fundamentalist Muslim soldier in civilian clothes and an oppressed refugee, we shouldn’t just fling open the doors and the coffers to let them in. Since we are compassionate and loving, we should let the fleeing Christians in. We should look for solutions, like air strikes against the fundamentalist Muslims all over the world, including the ones that are causing the exodus. We should shut down all travel all over the world from and to Islamic countries. We should declare war on fundamentalist Islam everywhere. If the liberals are so quick to declare what the ancient Israelites would do, let me do the same, they would go out in spring with their king and wage war against them with God empowering them to strike down all of the evil of fundamental Islam so that it doesn’t spread. This isn’t out of fear as the liberals would have you believe, but out of a hatred of evil, and a desire to honor God. Of course that would require national repentance and conversion to Christianity. I don’t see that happening anytime soon. I don’t hate Muslims, but I hate fundamentalist Islam. I’ve read the quran. It is an evil lie. “True believers” of Islam are sold out to evil and though it is true that they could hear the gospel and repent, it is also true that they are, and have been, and will continue to kill everyone that fails to convert. So to reiterate, I think he misses the boat a bit, just like so many others do. The real problem is the evil of fundamentalist Islam, not conservative Christians.

What is the difference between a sojourning alien with Israel and an invading army?

***WARNING, GRAPHIC VIOLENCE AND PROFANITY***

 

What is the difference between a sojourning alien with Israel and an invading army? Sojourners were circumcised and obeyed the laws of Israel and became Israelites. In light of how the refugees are behaving in Europe we need to consider how to deal with them here. Are they truly refugees or an invading army? If we see what has been done by them in Europe, we can trust they will do the same here when their numbers are great enough. After all it is what the quran says to do.
Most Americans haven’t seen the videos of the atrocities being perpetrated against the Europeans. They have no clue of what they are in for. It is a fine thing to show Christian love and charity to honest refugees. Let’s do it in a manner in which we can control it. Let’s be wise in our efforts to help. We have a responsibility to our citizens and fellow countrymen as well. We must love them to. We cannot love our enemy at the expense of our countrymen. Unless the left’s idea of helping refugees is internment camps, we should reduce the numbers and take the time to identify them and clear them before we allow them open access to our country. I would go as far to say that we should only allow Christian refugees instead of Islamic refugees. The Islamic ones should stay and denounce the violence committed in the name of their god. Most people out here know what a jack-mormon is. It is a mormon who doesn’t practice everything their prophet tells them to, they don’t go to church very often, they don’t pay their dues, they don’t abstain from drinking, but they consider themselves mormon. Well the muslims who don’t kill, or wage jihad, or make Christians pay the jizyah, or support the jihad against us infidels, or who don’t read the quran or know what it says are the jack-muslims of the world. Real muslims hate them almost as much as they hate us. So those so called peaceful muslims are not real muslims and they don’t follow the quran the way the real muslims do. What the so called extremist are really is nothing more complex than real, genuine, true believers in the islam of the quran. So I’ve had enough liberal nonsense. People really need to read the quran and study history.

Should we, as Christians be ready to defend ourselves and others with lethal force?

killer
This evil man happens to be a muslim carrying out the commands of the Quran. If the Brits could carry guns someone could have stopped him from beheading a man in broad daylight in the middle of the street.

 

 

Luke 22:36, “…And He said to them, “But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one…” This verse has long been asserted to be allegorical. Theologians have said that this verse tells us to be prepared to fight the spiritual enemy in spiritual places. That it doesn’t mean physical fighting. They say that we must be ready to fight temptations. Here is a quote from Calvin’s Commentary for verse 36,

But now let him who hath a purse take it. In metaphorical language he threatens that they will soon meet with great troubles and fierce attacks; just as when a general, intending to lead the soldiers into the field of battle, calls them to arms, and orders them to lay aside every other care, and think of nothing else than fighting, not even to take any thought about procuring food. For he shows them–as is usually done in cases of extreme danger–that every thing must be sold, even to the scrip and the purse, in order to supply them with arms. And yet he does not call them to an outward conflict, but only, under the comparison of fighting, he warns them of the severe struggles of temptations which they must undergo, and of the fierce attacks which they must sustain in spiritual contests. That they might more willingly throw themselves on the providence of God, he first reminded them, as I have said, that God took care to supply them with what was necessary, even when they carried with them no supplies of food and raiment. Having experienced so large and seasonable supplies from God, they ought not, for the future, to entertain any doubt that he would provide for every one of their necessities.

Here is a quote from the Geneva Study Bible notes, “{m} Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

(m) He says all this using an allegory, as if he said, O my friends and fellow soldiers, you have lived until now in relative peace: but now there is at hand a most severe battle to be fought, and you must therefore lay all other things aside and think about dressing yourselves in armour. And what this armour is, is shown by his own example, when he prayed afterward in the garden and reproved Peter for striking with the sword.”

Here is John Wesley’s notes on the verse, “22:36 But now – You will be quite in another situation. You will want every thing. He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one – It is plain, this is not to be taken literally. It only means, This will be a time of extreme danger.”

They site Luke 22:50-51 as support for this assertion. Luke 22:50-51, “…And one of them struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his right ear. But Jesus answered and said, “Stop! No more of this.” And He touched his ear and healed him…”

 

I tend to agree with John Gill’s understanding of the verse. Here is a quote from his exposition of the Bible,

“Then said he unto them,…. That is, Jesus said unto them, as the Persic version expresses it:

but now he that hath a purse let him take it, and likewise his scrip; signifying hereby, that from this time forward, immediately after his departure from them, after his death, resurrection, and ascension, when they should be sent into all the world to preach the Gospel, it would be otherwise with them than before; that they should be reduced to great penury and distress, should neither have food, nor money to buy any with; and that they should suffer hunger, and thirst, and nakedness, and have no certain dwellingplace, as was their case; see 1 Corinthians 4:11 and that they would not be received, and entertained in the manner they had been; and therefore it would be advisable, if they had any provisions, to take them with them in their scrips; or if they had any money, to carry it with them in their purses; for glad would they be to provide themselves with necessaries at any rate:

and he that hath no sword; the word “sword” is not in this clause, but in the next; it is only in the original, “he that hath not”; which, at first sight; looks as if the sense was, he that hath not a purse, or a scrip, to sell, and buy a sword with, let him sell his garment, and buy one: but, as De Dieu observes, the phrase, “he that hath not”, is the same with “he that has nothing”; who is a poor man, and has no money to buy a sword with, let him part with his garment, which rich men, who had money, had no need to do; though the Syriac, Persic, and Arabic versions put the word sword, in both clauses;

he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy a sword; that is, if he could get one no other way. Christ here uses the common dialect of the nation, as Dr. Lightfoot observes. So on the feast of dedication of the temple,

“if a man had not any thing to eat, but what he had by alms, he must beg, or , “sell his garment”, and take oil, and lamps, and light them (u).”

These words of Christ are not to be understood literally, that he would have his disciples furnish themselves with swords at any rate, since he would never have said, as he afterwards does, that two were sufficient; which could not be enough for eleven men; or have forbid Peter the use of one, as he did in a very little time after this: but his meaning is, that wherever they came, and a door was opened for the preaching of the Gospel, they would have many adversaries, and these powerful, and would be used with great violence, and be followed with rage and persecution; so that they might seem to stand in need of swords to defend them: the phrase is expressive of the danger they would be exposed to, and of their need of protection; and therefore it was wrong in them to be disputing and quarrelling about superiority, or looking out for, and expecting temporal pomp and grandeur, when this would be their forlorn, destitute, and afflicted condition; and they would quickly see the affliction and distress begin in himself. In “seven” ancient copies of Beza’s, it is read in the future tense, “he shall take, he shall sell, he shall buy”.”

(u) Maimon. Hilch. Megilla Uchanucha, c. 4. sect. 12.

There clarification we need is clear when we add context. The first assertion stops at the rebuke by Christ when one of the disciples used a sword to attack the slave of the high priest. This is to support the notion of physical pacifism today. The fact that Christ rebuked him for using force against an aggressor is misunderstood to mean that the use of force against an aggressor is wrong in all circumstances. We all agree that our true enemies are of the spiritual world and they are not of flesh and blood, but we must acknowledge that these enemies use flesh and blood as fodder for their war against God and His servants.

We must also look at all of the text. If we read verses 52-52, “…Then Jesus said to the chief priests and officers of the temple and elders who had come against Him, “Have you come out with swords and clubs as you would against a robber? “While I was with you daily in the temple, you did not lay hands on Me; but this hour and the power of darkness are yours.”…” We see that Jesus is explaining to the chief priests and officers of the temple and elders that He has never given them cause to come with weapons against Him. He wasn’t saying that there is never a time to use force. He was saying that that moment wasn’t the time for it.

We can also see from the entirety of the New Testament that Christ came to fulfill a purpose that was from the Father. For the time that He was here and through the time of His ministry He would not be stopped until that time which was decreed. When His kingdom was established and He would ascend then the disciples would be open for persecution much as He was.

They would be hated for His namesake. There would be all sorts of dangers and hardships. They were to spread the gospel and establish the Church in opposition to the world, Contra Mundum. Provisions would be required. While Christ was with them, they didn’t need anything and were sent out with the provision of God to show them that He would care for them. They were now being sent out. They would be providing for others out of God’s provision for them, both spiritually and materially. When we see someone being oppressed unjustly, assaulted or abused, we have an obligation out of love to assist them. Certainly while the disciples were waging spiritual warfare they at times must do physical battle with the enemy’s forces as well.

I’m not suggesting that they were like the crusaders. They weren’t running around fighting great battles. I think it is reasonable to assume they were to defend themselves and others from thieves, murderers, and other such offenders. We know that if a man lives by the sword he shall die by the sword, but that isn’t what they are being told to do. They aren’t being told to go out as murderous killers or warriors like the Muslims. They are simply being warned that things are going to get bad once Jesus is no longer bodily with them. They are being told to be wise as serpents and gentle as doves. I personally have no problem owning firearms and protecting myself and others when prudent. I won’t tell you to violate your conscience either.

I believe it is much more loving to live in an ordered society with laws, but when the police aren’t around to help you must stand up and deal with evil men. Love for people will move us to defend them from the enemy’s minions. Love for Christ will make us prudent in our use of force. If we don’t love Christ, our use of force will surely turn into cruel tyranny. This is what we see going on all around the world today.

We must first and foremost be Christians. We must be people who have repented of sin and put our faith in the Lord Jesus for our salvation. We must seek His kingdom first and make Him preeminent in our minds, and lives. When His will is Lord over ours we won’t take a life without great cause and deliberation.

Proof-texting, its dangers, and benefits.

stephen-a-martyr-for-god_jpg_crop_display

            Proof-texting is the practice of quoting a verse, or verses from the text of the Bible, to support, or refute a doctrine.  This practice has been used by the orthodox and the heretic.  The dangers of proof-texting are varied and manifold.  With proper presuppositions proof-texting can be a valuable tool for supporting orthodox doctrines. 

            First, we will go over the problems with proof-texting.  The biggest problem is when a person or group starts with a false presupposition.  For example, a Mormon starts with the presupposition that Jesus is a created being.  They hold this false presupposition because they believe the words of a false prophet, and teacher in authority over God’s very own word.  The Seventh Day Adventists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Muslims, do the same thing. 

With this presupposition when they run into texts like John 3:16 “…For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life…”  They wrongly understand the word, “begotten” to mean that Jesus was the progeny of the Father.  They then, in turn use this as a proof-text for their false doctrine that deny the eternal deity of Jesus, in stark disregard for His proclamation of being the, “I Am.”  This, in turn requires more eisegesis, and proof-texting, in an attempt to refute the true doctrines, in conflict with their false ones.  When apologetically engaged with a heretic or cult member they are usually more than thrilled to proof-text ad nauseum.  This can quickly become counterproductive.  If this is done in a public forum it can be disastrous.  The onlookers could be convinced of the heretical doctrines.

            Our apologetics should be from a capable well rounded understanding of the entire Bible in its own context.  It should be founded on the presupposition that the Bible is the truth, and the authority, on What God has to say to man.  When we start with a true presupposition, and are exegetical in our reading of the Bible, we can proof-text like Paul to the Jews in Hebrews.  When proof-texting is done correctly it can win people’s minds to the truths of the Bible.  There is nothing like a good section of scripture quoted in context at the right time to hammer home sound doctrine.  God’s word is authoritative and when we speak truthfully with the authority of scripture it is a powerful thing to witness.