A Herd of White Trojan Horses

A Herd of White Trojan Horses
Vol: 53 Issue: 16 Thursday, February 16, 2006

According to figures cited by National Geographic, one in every five people world-wide is a Muslim. It puts the global population of Islam at 1.3 billion people.

Let these comparisons sink in. The global Islamic population is about four times the total population of the United States. It is three times the total population of North America. It is more than double the population of the entire Western Hemisphere.

There are three times as many Muslims as there are Europeans living in the EU. The global Islamic population is six times the size of the Russian Federation.

The global Islamic population is about equal to the population of China, the world’s most populous country, and is greater than the population of India and Pakistan combined.

(Source: CIA World Factbook, rev. January 2006)

And remember, Islam is the world’s fastest growing religion. Radical Islam is the dominant religion of the Middle East. Wahabbi Islam, the state religion of Saudi Arabia, is preached from Pakistan to Palestine. It’s major theocratic rival, Shi’ia, is the dominant religion of both Iran and Iraq.

Both preach the same concept of jihad, or holy war. ‘Moderate’ Islam within these sects is loosely defined as being those Islamists not currently conducting jihad against the West.

There are sects within Islam that interpret jihad as an internal holy war against sin, and it is from these clerics that the Western media is able to find spokespersons for moderate Islam.

But to the Wahabbist or Shi’ite true believer, these are not moderates, but apostates, indistinguishable from infidels and worse than dhimmis.

Recently convicted British Wahabbist cleric Abu Hamza preached jihad openly in Great Britain for years. In lectures, recordings and writings, the imam said Adolf Hitler was sent into the world to punish the Jews.

Abu Hamza told his followers they must fight for Allah and this involves a religious mandate to murder Jews, kuffars (nonbelievers in Islam) and “apostates,” such as leaders of Arab nations like Egypt.

Abu Hamza repeatedly defines “jihad” as an avenue for establishing a caliphate, or Islamic state, governed by the most radical interpretation of Sharia religious law.

At his trial, prosecutors introduced as evidence a 10-volume “blueprint for terrorism” they say was discovered in Abu Hamza’s house.

Among the targets for “causing disturbance but not loss of life” are Big Ben, the Eiffel Tower and the Statue of Liberty. Chapter headings include “The need to study the principles of war,” and “The duty of assassination and kidnap.”

Other subheadings offer advice on reconnaissance, infiltration, ambush and how to manufacture explosive devices, open locks and train assassins. One section details plans to hit buildings with large populations, including museums, ports and archaeological sites and to attack VIPs.

David Perry, prosecuting counsel, told the court, “This is a manual, a blueprint for terrorism.”

Almost unnoticed was a section in the document’s “execution section” that recommended sending Islamic agents to any country intended as a target at least 10 years before jihad begins.


Muslims began flooding into Europe following World War II, especially to Belgium, France, Germany, and the Netherlands. Muslim immigrants make up the largest single component of the immigrant population in the United Kingdom.

At the same time, those nations entered into the Benelux Treaty and began building the framework for a unified European superstate.

To make it all work, Europe adopted a strategic of multiculturalism under the slogan, “One Europe, Many Voices”. The old European nationalist cultures had to be supplanted with a sense of pan-European cultural ‘awareness’.

The introduction of the concept of multiculturalism had the intended effect, but it also activated the law of unintended consequences. By encouraging dozens of ‘indigenous’ cultures it created sub-cultures within a existing culture already struggling to maintain its own sense of identity.

This ‘birds of a feather’ immigration policy meant Muslim immigrants tended to create their own communities rather than being absorbed into their rapidly-diminishing host culture.

As a consequence of demography, history, ideology, and policy, western Europe now hosts an entire generation of citizens in name only.

Neither citizens of their home countries nor their birth countries, their allegiance is to their understanding of Islam, as defined by Islamic ‘clerics’ like Abu Hamza.

Despite repeated warnings, and even after September 11, it grows increasingly obvious that we weren’t ready for this. We still aren’t.

The shock with which the Islamic uprising over the cartoons was received by the West hasn’t yet penetrated beyond the surface level.

Blinded by ambition, Europe and the West has invited in literally millions of Trojan Horses’ — supposing, as did the arrogant rulers of Troy, that they were an expression of tribute to a superior culture.

The Arabic word ‘Islam’ means “submission” and itself comes from the term ‘aslama, which means “to surrender, resign oneself.”

The first reaction from the West was to apologize. Apologies were offered for offending the great Islamic religion of peace and love by most of the governments of Europe.

The United States, bastion of free speech and champion of the right to be offensive as a bedrock principle of freedom, expressed its outrage. Bill Clinton called the publication of the cartoons both “appalling” AND “outrageous.”

The second reaction was to submit, by solemnly assuring the Islamic world that it would abridge its most closely held principle, that of freedom of speech, to prevent such ‘outrages’ in the future.

As Christians, it is important to understand the true nature of the religion of peace and love that the West is so willing to submit to in exchange for cold jihad.

Among most anticipated events in Islamic eschatology is the coming of a man known as, The Mahdi. The coming of the Mahdi is the central crowning element of all Islamic end-time narratives.

Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad believes that an Islamic war against the West will hasten the Mahdi’s return and has said so publicly, on more than one high-profile occasion.

According to Muslim tradition, the Mahdi is believed to ride forth on a white horse at the head of his forces.

(And suddenly, it all comes together in a dizzying rush; Abu Hamza’s blueprint, riots, cartoons, al-Qaeda, Trojan horses, the myth of moderate Islam, the strong delusion. . . stay with me, here.)

In their book, “Al Mahdi and the End of Time”, Muhammad Ibn Izzat and Muhammad Arif, two well-known Egyptian authors, identify the Mahdi from the Book of the Revelation:

“I find the Mahdi recorded in the books of the Prophets For instance, the Book of Revelation says: And I saw and behold a white horse. He that sat on him went forth conquering and to conquer.

Izzat and Arif then go on to say: “It is clear that this man is the Mahdi who will ride the white horse and judge by the Qur an (with justice) and with whom will be men with marks of prostration on their foreheads.”

Islam holds that the Mahdi is the rider on the white horse, the first of the “Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.”

While there may be a ‘moderate’ Islamic majority lurking out there somewhere, the Mahdi is as central to Islamic eschatology as the 2nd Coming of Christ is to Christianity.

And Islam’s Mahdi — according to Islam’s own scholars — is identified in the Christian Bible!

“. . . behold a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow; and a crown was given unto him: and he went forth conquering, and to conquer. . . And there went out another horse that was red: and power was given to him that sat thereon to take peace from the earth, and that they should kill one another: and there was given unto him a great sword.” (Revelation 6:2,4)

Who, then, is the rider of the white horse in Revelation 6?

The universal consensus of mainstream Bible commentaries identify the ride of the white horse in Revelation 6:2 — as the antichrist!

“And when these things BEGIN to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.” (Luke 21:28)

Tick . . . Tick . . . Tick

“Whoops! Sorry!”

“Whoops! Sorry!”
Vol: 53 Issue: 15 Wednesday, February 15, 2006

When you get right down to it, what do you say after you accidentally shoot a long-time friend in the face? Is there more one can say besides, “Whoops! Sorry?”

It wasn’t five seconds after I heard that the victim was going to survive that I realized I was not only anticipating the late-night jokes to come, but that I was making some up involuntarily on my own.

I said to Gayle, “Hey, the Vice President just shot a supporter!” Gayle replied, “A Republican?”

“Used to be,” I answered.

I wasn’t disappointed by the late-night jokes, either.

Letterman: “We can’t get Bin Laden, but we nailed a 78-year-old attorney. . . . Honestly, I don’t know what all of the fuss is about. What’s more American than shooting your hunting buddy in the butt?”

On Dave’s Top Ten List of ‘Cheney Excuses’ was “I thought the guy was trying to go gay cowboy on me.” But John Stewart’s comments on “The Daily Show” were even funnier.

After noting that Cheney was the first sitting vice president to shoot a man since Aaron Burr shot Alexander Hamilton, Stewart noted a significant difference:

“Hamilton, of course, shot in a duel with Aaron Burr over issues of honor, integrity and political maneuvering. Whittington?,” Stewart asks: “Mistaken for a bird.”

Jimmy Kimmel quipped, “It’s part of the president’s new Social Security plan. Once you hit 78, kablamo.”

But Jay Leno made me laugh out loud — twice! The first was Leno’s observation that, “When people found out he shot a lawyer his popularity is now at 92%”. Later, Leno said, “After he shot the guy, he screamed, ‘Anyone else want to call domestic wire tapping illegal?’ “


There are two ways to look at an accident. The first is with horror, the second with humor. Since accidents are, by nature, not done on purpose, they merely are: either horrible or funny, but accidents aren’t ‘committed’ — they happen.

When I heard that the Vice President shot a man in the face in a hunting accident, my first reaction was horror. I felt horror for the victim, for the vice-president, and for the situation.

When the news was released that the victim would probably be ok, the horror took a back seat to humor. I hadn’t expected anybody to come up with a way to turn an accident into malice. Until I read this morning’s headlines.

One columnist actually went so far as to suggest Cheney shot Harry Whittington on purpose, in order to send a message to Scooter Libby not to testify.

Wrote Harry Saunders in the Raleigh News and Observer; “Just as surely as a fish wrapped in a bulletproof vest means ‘Luca Brasi sleeps with the fishes,’ that shotgun blast to Whittington’s face was meant to convey that ‘Scooter’ Libby had better bite his tongue and forget about testifying against Cheney, his former boss, in the Valerie Plame spy case.”

And Saunders wasn’t being tongue-in-cheek. He was serious! That there are people who would believe the vice-president would shoot a friend to ‘send a message’ (Cheney has Libby’s phone number, btw) is nothing short of astonishing! But not as astonishing as the fact a major newspaper would publish anything that stupid in the first place.

Senator Chuck Schumer, (D-NY) evidently also detected a connection between the accidental shooting of a Republican lawyer during a quail hunt and Scooter Libby.

“In light of the recent shooting accident and all the questions surrounding his role in the leaking of classified national security information through his Chief of Staff Lewis Libby, there are many questions that Americans have for VP Cheney,” Schumer said in a press release.

The New York Times, clearly hoping that Whittington will die from his wounds, is already speculating about the likelihood of a grand jury being convened.

“Under the law,’ the Times reported with barely concealed glee, “even an accidental hunting fatality can result in criminal charges. Mr. Cheney could be charged with negligence, defined as failing to understand the dangers involved and disregarding them, or recklessness, defined as understanding the dangers and disregarding them.”

Hillary Clinton found in the first vice-presidential shooting since 1804, a ‘pattern’, “going back years now, there’s a pattern and it’s a pattern that should be troubling,”

Clinton was upset because the shooting wasn’t immediately reported to the mainstream media. To Mrs. Clinton, that is part of the pattern of secrecy so severe it bordered on being unconstitutional.

“The refusal of this administration to level with the American people on matters large and small is very disturbing, because it goes counter to the way our constitutional democracy … is supposed to work.”

C’mon, folks! Take a deep breath! It was a HUNTING accident! It isn’t the job of the government to spoon-feed the mainstream media. They are supposed to find things out on their own.

The press was miffed because they got scooped by the local newspaper the following morning. The partisans saw an opportunity to exploit the media’s petulance to make political points.

There were more than four thousand stories retrieved by Google News discussing the accident. A few examples from the first page of hits:

“Gun Flap Adds To White House Woes” – Detroit Free Press

“How Cheney Turned Accident into Disaster” Miami Herald

“Cheney Shot Triggers Heart Attack” – Chicago Sun Times

“Cheney’s Victim Suffers Coronary” – Toronto Globe and Mail

“The VP Who Isn’t Shooting Straight” – New York Daily News

“Doctors: Cheney’s Shot Has Lasting Risk” – Indianapolis Star

“Wanton Killer Stalks White House” — ok, so I made that one up. But you weren’t sure, at first, were you? That’s the point.

We live in a world where truth is as solid as air and fiction is as real as somebody wants it to be. And, as obvious as that fact is, it doesn’t really seem to bother anybody, provided the spin suits their preferred worldview.

Dick Cheney accidentally shoots a friend in a hunting accident.

By the next morning, Dick Cheney’s accidental shooting of a man thirty yards away with bird shot is really a conspiracy to keep Scooter Libby silent that will eventually go before a grand jury investigating a pattern of unconstitutional secrecy over vice-presidential shootings. Or something.

It must be true. I read it in the morning papers!

“And as He sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto Him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of Thy coming, and of the end of the world?”

“And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.” (Matthew 24:3-4)

“God is On Our Side”

“God is On Our Side”
Vol: 53 Issue: 14 Tuesday, February 14, 2006

It is widely perceived among the planners in the Democratic Party that they are losing elections because of God. They have concluded that the Republicans have got a lock on God and that they need to co-opt Him over to their side.

During his campaign, Howard Dean promised to invoke Jesus’ Name early and often as he toured the South.

“Christ was someone who sought out people who were disenfranchised, people who were left behind,” Dean told the Boston Globe. “He fought against self-righteousness of people who had everything. . .He was a person who set an extraordinary example that has lasted 2000 years, which is pretty inspiring when you think about it.”

Dean is a Congregationalist who doesn’t attend church. His wife and children are all Jewish. He favors gay rights, is pro-abortion and once called Southern voters “red-necks that need to get over their obsession with guns, God, gays and school prayer.”

Dr. Dean, a former physician for Planned Parenthood, was the first governor in the nation to sign the gay civil union legislation in the United States.

According to Dean, “Our moral values are closer to the American people than the Republicans’ are.”

In their newest joint political book, “Take in Back” former Clinton officials James Carville and Paul Bergala declared, “Jesus is a liberal” while DNC activist Clint Wallis writes, “Jesus is not a Republican.”

Of course, Jesus isn’t a Republican. That is a red herring argument designed to equate morals with politics. Morals aren’t supposed to be dictated by politics. It’s supposed to be the other way around. When politics conflicts with moral values, one is supposed to adjust one’s politics, not one’s morals.


I regularly get asked the question, “Why focus on politics instead of Bible prophecy?” The short answer is that one can’t understand one without the other.

The main pillars of unfolding Bible prophecy are the development of a global religion, a global economy and a global government that will fall under the control of the antichrist.

In this instance, we find all three being co-opted as political tools. In his book, “God’s Politics” liberal ‘evangelical’ author Jim Wallis asks; “When did Jesus become pro-rich?” marrying all three in a single sentence.

The Apostle Paul is known as the ‘Apostle to the Gentiles’ and is the author of most of the Epistles concerning the Church and the Church Age. In these last days, the world’s representative Christian nation is the United States.

I am not arguing the United States is the most Christian, or that it is more Christian than some other place in the spiritual sense. But just as the Middle East is the ‘Islamic world’ and Israel is a Jewish state, America is a ‘Christian country’.

In his 2nd Letter to Timothy, Paul pens a warning to the Church: “This know also, THAT IN THE LAST DAYS, perilous times shall come.” It seems clear from the context that the intended recipient was the Church of the last days. Paul outlined the general worldview as the Church of that generation would view it.

“For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God.”

Reading through in order, Paul outlines the thinking behind the liberal education system, moving on to the abolition of school prayer, through to supporting abortion, opposing faith-based initiatives, supporting sex education and condom distribution rather than abstinence, the redefinition of patriotism to mean what used to be called treason, etc.

And then, just in case you missed the point, Paul ties it together with a description of the ‘Jesus was a liberal’ argument, warning,

“Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof. . .” (2nd Timothy 3:1-5)

“The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves”

“The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves”
Vol: 53 Issue: 13 Monday, February 13, 2006

This past season, NBC aired a short-lived TV series called “The Book of Daniel” as one of its prime-time offerings. The series revolved around an drug-addicted Episcopal priest with an alcoholic wife, a gay son, and a drug-dealing teenaged daughter.

At the office, the priest’s lesbian secretary is sleeping with his sister-in-law. The priest, Daniel Webster, (hence the clever title) would have periodic discussions with ‘Jesus’, who when asked to do something for Daniel in one scene, replied, “Who do you think I am? God?”

NBC defended its offering as a ‘serious drama about Christian people and the Christian faith’. It wrapped the series in the 1st Amendment and aired the series over the objections of the many network affiliates who refused to carry it.

After airing only three episodes, NBC unceremoniously dumped the show. The media started screaming ‘censorship’ by the religious right. The fact is, by the third airing, all the program’s sponsors had pulled out. Not because of threats or violence. Because of economics. The show was awful and nobody watched it.

There were no riots, although the program was offensive in the extreme. Not a single Hollywood producer was harmed. Not a single television station was burned down. Nobody supported it, and it died. End of story.

Kevin Reilly, NBC Entertainment president, said the network’s reluctance to order more episodes had more to do with the series’ sluggish ratings performance than controversy.

He added, unapologetically, “We’re going to continue to put on creative programming, regardless of any possible controversy.”

NBC was among the national news outlets who declined to publish the ‘Satanic Cartoons’ saying it was exercising ‘editorial restraint’ out of ‘respect for Islam’.


NBC produced “The Book of Daniel” for American consumption. It depicted an ‘average’ [in NBC’s view] American Christian family. It admitted the series was intended to be ‘edgy’ [offensive] and was canceled for economic, rather than social-sensitivity reasons.

Eight in ten Americans self-identify as ‘Christians’ culturally, if not in the spiritual sense.

So it logically follows that the series was intended to offend a large segment of Christianity and exploit the controversy to capture a large enough market share from the other 20% to sustain the series.

By airing the series, NBC demonstrated that it not only had no respect for its viewers, but also that it had no respect for Christianity. It exploited Christian sensibilities in an effort to make money. It was simply a failed marketing experiment. There will be more, promises NBC’s Kevin Reilly.

There is one ‘possible’ controversy that NBC won’t get too creative with.

There won’t be any fall offering featuring Ahmed the jihadi, struggling with the problems of having stoned his gay son, drug-dealing daughter and drunk wife to death after talking it over on his camel with a hip, slightly dim-witted Mohammed.

We won’t see Ahmed getting advice from Mohammed about the most effective shrapnel to pack around the C4 in his suicide vest, hear Mohammed make off-color cracks about all those waiting virgins in Paradise, or shrug his shoulders and ask, “Who do you think I am? A prophet?”

The main reason? Because nobody at NBC wants to have to go into hiding with the families as the price of exercising ‘freedom of speech’.

There will be more ‘serious dramas’ about ‘Christian people and Christian faith’ like Hollywood’s “Saved” or NBC’s “Book of Daniel”.

But have you noticed that whenever Hollywood produces an action movie about terrorism, the terrorists are all from Eastern Europe?

Even those that connect terror and Islam are careful to note at least once, if not several times, that Islam is a religion of peace and love and that the terrorists are an aberration.

The mainstream media claim that it suppressed the cartoons out of ‘respect for Islam’ adds a whole new dimension to the term hypocritical, but that is only the tip of the iceberg.

Mainstream Islam has spoken: “The beatings will continue until morale improves.” And the mainstream media got the message, loud and clear.

It offered its submission to Islamic law, its admission of dhimmitude, and, to the Islamic world, its expression of loyalty.

But in an act of self-delusion, it is trying to seize the high moral ground, claiming ‘self-restraint’ out of ‘respect for Islam’ instead of submission — a distinction without a difference.

It is a truism that a the popular media is reflective of its audience — that is why it is called the ‘popular’ press. It is equally true that submission is not an act, it is a process.

And that process is well underway.

The Quiet Threat

The Quiet Threat
Vol: 53 Issue: 11 Saturday, February 11, 2006

The Quiet Threat

Early in the 20th century, an imprisoned Adolf Hitler wrote his political manifesto, “Mein Kampf” — in which he outlined in detail his plan for world conquest and subjugation.

When he came to power, Hitler stuck to his plan to the letter. Despite the fact he had given the world written, advance notice as early as 1925, his 1939 lightning war took Europe completely by surprise. By the time they realized what was happening, most of Europe was under Nazi rule.

And once under Nazi rule, Hitler did exactly what he had promised he would from his cell in Landesburg prison.

His basic premise for governing was an open, even cheerful embrace of deception as a legitimate political tool:

“All this was inspired by the principle – which is quite true in itself – that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.” (Mein Kampf, James Murphy translation, 1925)

Under the Nazis, lies repackaged as Nazi slogans were repeated even by non-Nazis in an effort to stay under the radar of Hitler’s Gestapo.

Shopkeepers would put signs in the windows containing politically correct political slogans, knowing that they didn’t believe them and neither did their friends and neighbors.

Slogans like, “Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein F hrer” (“One people, one country, one leader”) sounded much more dignified than, “I am afraid and will obey without question.”But for those who embraced the Nazis instead of opposing them, that was the real message behind the slogans.

The people had their own, whispered slogans, but mostly they kept quiet about the little things.


In Denmark, one small newspaper in one small country pointed out some small truths in a series of cartoons. Those cartoons equated Islam and the prophet Mohammed with Islamofascist terror and violence.

It is a ‘small truth’ in the sense that it is true that not all Muslims are Islamofascists. It is equally true that not all Germans were Nazis.

But it ignores the larger truth that even non-Nazis fought for their national cause when it was threatened. The cartoons connecting Islam with Islamofacism are no more or less accurate than WWII cartoons connecting Germans with Nazi fascism.

But global attention is focused on the smaller truth at the expense of missing the larger. While the Muslim world is not composed exclusively of murderous fanatics, the larger truth is that they are the ones setting the agenda for a coming clash of civilizations.

Hundreds of thousands of Muslims marched in demonstrations across the world to celebrate the terrorist attacks of September 11th.

There were no Islamic marches to protest the unprovoked slaughter of more than three thousand unarmed non-combatant civilians that were simply going about their daily lives when murdered.

More hundreds of thousands of Muslims demonstrated against the invasion of Afghanistan to topple the Taliban and the invasion of Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein.

There were no organized Muslim demonstrations to protest the Islamofascist attack in Madrid that killed hundreds of innocent civilians.

Muslims world-wide protested a discredited Newsweek report that American soldiers were desecrating the Koran at Guantanamo Bay.

There were no corresponding Islamic demonstrations when Adnan Zarqawi held down a terrified young American civilian aid worker named Nick Berg.

Zarqawi slowly sawed off Berg’s head with a butcher knife, recording his screams on video and sharing the grisly scene with the Islamic world via al Jazeera. Moderate Islam had no more to say about that than did non-Nazi Germans when the Jews were being loaded onto cattle cars.

It is the smaller truth — that the majority of Muslims are not actively engaged in armed jihad against the West — that gives credibility to the Big Lie that Islam is, at its heart, really a peaceful religion that was hijacked by a few fanatics.

And as German theologian Dietrich Bonhoffer noted before being hanged by the Nazis, “The failure of the people to speak small truths leads to the victory of the big lie.”

The Mohammed Cartoon Intifada should, by all standards of social logic, have destroyed the myth of moderate Islam as effectively as a suicide belt destroys its innocent victims.

There have been condemnations by Islamic ‘moderates’ but even those condemnations are revealing.

Wrote self-proclaimed Islamic moderate Tabish Kahir, associate professor of English at Aarhus University, Denmark;

“Like many other moderate Muslims, I have been silent on the cartoons and protests. Not because I have nothing to say, but because there is no space left for me.”

He goes on to complain that the Muslim rage has effectively ‘silenced’ moderate Muslims. Not that he is appalled by Islamic reaction that effectively confirmed the cartoonist’s theme that Islam is the root cause of Islamic terror. Because his own voice of protest is lost in the cacophony.

‘Moderate’ Islam evidently demands that the Western world obey the tenets of Islam as a condition of ‘peace’, whereas fundamentalist Islam demands submission to Islam as a condition of survival.

Note that in both cases, western submission to Islamic law is axiomatic — the difference between moderate Islam and radical Islam is largely that of methodology and timing — the objective remains the same.

The operative word here is ‘submission’. The alternative is a war between civilizations.

The small truth is that not every Muslim is a murderous terrorist. But that small truth conceals the Big Lie that unspoken Islamic support for terror is somehow different than active participation in it.

It is perhaps revealing that radical Islamic terror could never prevail against western military power. It isn’t the radicals that the West needs fear.

It is the moderates.

A Tale of Two Messiahs

A Tale of Two Messiahs
Vol: 53 Issue: 10 Friday, February 10, 2006

According to a recent poll, more Americans rate Iran a greater threat to the United States than any other country.

According to the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, only last October, Iran was far down the list, behind China, Iraq and North Korea.

Today, Iran tops the list. Two-thirds or more of those polled said they think that if Iran develops nuclear weapons, it is likely to attack Israel, Europe or the United States. Even more, 82 percent, say it’s likely that a nuclear-armed Iran would provide nuclear weapons to terrorists.

Interestingly, however, only about 17% of Americans want Washington to take the lead role. A whopping three-fourths of Americans prefer that the United Nations handle Iran.

But the United Nations is, first and foremost, a diplomatic debating society, and secondly, completely dominated by international Islam. Islamic states form the single largest voting bloc at the UN, and vote AS a bloc, outnumbering any Western alliance.

UN apologists are quick to point out that the United Nations took the lead in the first Gulf War, even bringing a number of Islamic states, including Syria, into the conflict on the UN side.

What they forget is that Saddam had invaded another Islamic country, inflaming the Islamic world in the process. Iran, on the other hand, is mainly a threat to the enemies of Islam in the West, and, in particular, to Israel.

Saddam had hoped merely attacking Israel would win him Islamic support, and Islamic hatred was such that it won him the admiration of the Palestinian people living within sight of his missile strikes.

The Islamic majority at the UN are unlikely to sanction military action against Iran for threatening Israel with destruction. Counting on the UN is to neutralize Iran is like planning for your retirement by buying lottery tickets.

And expecting Iran to voluntarily restrain itself in response to diplomatic pressure has about as much hope of success as does Judge Roy Moore of being confirmed to the US Supreme Court.

Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is guided politically by his religious beliefs, and those religious beliefs make no allowance for political compromise in exchange for peace.


Ahmadinejad is a true believer in the Shi’ite sect awaiting the return of the 12th Imam, also known as the Mahdi. The Mahdi, according to Iran’s state religion, is Muhammad ibn Hasan, the “righteous descendant of the prophet Mohammed” who has been in hiding for a thousand years.

His return will be preceded by cosmic chaos, war, bloodshed and pestilence. After this cataclysmic confrontation between the forces of good and evil, the Mahdi will lead the world to an era of universal peace.

And Ahmadinejad believes, as does Iran’s dominant religious sect, that lesser mortals can not merely influence his return, but, by initiating that end-times conflict between Dar al Islam (the Zone of Islam) and Dar al Haran (the Zone of War), he can actually HASTEN the Mahdi’s return.

“The ultimate promise of all Divine religions,” says Ahmadinejad, “will be fulfilled with the emergence of a perfect human being [the 12th Imam], who is heir to all prophets. He will lead the world to justice and absolute peace. Oh mighty Lord, I pray to you to hasten the emergence of your last repository, the promised one.”

Let that sink in for a second. Imagine, for a moment, that the dominant view of Christianity was that launching an all-out war against the forces of evil would bring about Christ’s return.

Imagine you really believed that God wanted you to start a war with Islam that would hasten the Return of Christ. That is a rough equivalent of what Ahmadinejad believes.

Ahmadinejad is close to the messianic Hojjatieh Society, which is governed by the conviction that the 12th Imam’s return will be hastened by “the creation of chaos on Earth.” His ideological mentor and spiritual guide is Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi who heads the ultraconservative acolytes who believe the 12th Imam’s return is “imminent.”

We Christians trust to the promise of Romans 8:31; “If God be for us, who can be against us?”

Ahmadinejad believes the same thing about Allah — AND he thinks Allah wants him to destroy Israel and launch a global apocalypse.

We’ve discussed this before. It isn’t just a small subset of Christians that believes that we are living in the last days of human history or that the return of the Messiah is imminent.

In Israel, there are permanent banners on display throughout the country welcoming the coming Jewish messiah.

The Temple Mount Faithful makes an annual pilgrimage to the Temple to lay a the cornerstone for the new temple. The Temple Mount Institute has already made necessary preparations for the resumption of Temple worship.

The Jewish messiah must be confirmed by the Sanhedrin (Supreme religious Court) at the Temple. So, after 1600 years of dormancy, the Sanhedrin was reconstituted last year.

Everybody is expecting their coming messiah, and they are looking for him at exactly the same point in history. Despite man’s best efforts at denial, there exists, at some subatomic level, something best described as a ‘God-consciousness’.

We are born believing in God, whether we name Him or not. One could almost argue that the age of accountability coincides with the age when we begin questioning the existence of God.

One need only witness the fervor with which an atheist makes his argument against God to see evidence of that God-consciousness. Who would devote a lifetime to the study and debate of the existence fairy princesses and dragon-slayers?

While mankind can’t shake his instinctive knowledge of God, we are quite capable of reshaping it to suit our comfort zone.

Paul described it this way: “even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind . . ” (Romans 1:28)

Nonetheless, Paul notes, because of that ingrained God-consciousness, Paul says “they are without excuse.” (Romans 1:20)

The time is short. All mankind knows it. All the various religions are making their various preparations for the coming apocalypse that we instinctively understand is unavoidable.

All the major religions have their own messiah-figure, and that counterfeit messiah figure is also identified by Scripture. The Bible pictures two separate ‘messiahs’.

There is the true Messiah, Jesus Christ. Christians await the true Messiah Who will come in power and great glory to judge the world and rule the earth for a thousand years.

The identity of the false messiah is also foretold in the pages of Scripture.

“Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders.” (2nd Thessalonians 2:9)

Whether one awaits the true Messiah or the coming counterfeit, the point is that everybody is waiting. Because this is the generation to whom Jesus spoke when He said,

“And when these things BEGIN to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.” (Luke 21:28)

Shaking the Powers of Heaven

Shaking the Powers of Heaven
Vol: 53 Issue: 9 Thursday, February 9, 2006

“And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; Men’s hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.” (Luke 21:25-26)

Last month, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration reported its findings that “nine of the ten warmest years on record have occurred since 1995.”

Don’t let these facts slip by and be absorbed into the white noise of your mind. Think about them. Allow them to have an impact. Also consider that the five warmest years ever recorded were 1998, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005.

And according to NOAA forecasts, we should be able to add 2006 to the list by next January, putting the five warmest years on record all in the 21st century.

NOAA is predicting the trend will continue in 2006, forecasting 17 named storms (twice the average) 9 hurricanes (average 5.9) and 5 major hurricanes (average is 2.3)

It was only a few years ago that phrases like ‘hundred year storm’ and ‘five hundred year flood’ had meaning.

In 1992, Hurricane Andrew was pronounced a ‘100 year storm’. And the Midwest Flood of 1993 was pronounced a ‘500 year flood’ — presumably because such catastrophes ordinarily take place at such widely spaced intervals.

That was the status quo only a bit over a decade ago.

Consider: Everybody remembers Hurricane Andrew. And everybody remembers the 1993 Midwest Flood. That was because they were rare events.

Nothing rare about monster storms or killer floods anymore. In an ordinary year, 2005’s Dennis was the major hurricane that should have been the Big One we all remember.

But then came Emily, then Katrina, then Rita. . . images of Andrew’s destructive landfall in Homestead, Florida paled in comparison to the destruction of New Orleans, most of the Gulf Coast and both of Florida’s coastlines.

Until 2005, 2004 was the deadliest and most costly season Atlantic hurricane season on record. Bonny and Charley were the first two hurricanes to hit the same state twice in 24 hours in a hundred years when they ravaged Florida.

And that was BEFORE Frances, Ivan and Jeanne finished what Bonny and Charley had begun.

Climatologists can’t explain why 2005 was so warm. 2005 tied the warmest year ever recorded, 1998, but without the help of the “El Nino of the century” that pushed temperatures so high that year.

Scientists also are warning that sea-level measurements since 1850 from tidal gauges and more recently from satellite images. From those measurements, they calculate that the sea is rising at twice the rate it was in 1850. Moreover, they have concluded the rise in sea level is a recent phenomenon.

Using measurements from sediment levels, scientists have been able to establish the rate the sea was rising had been more or less constant for the preceding 5,000 years. Now it is rising at the rate of two millimeters a year.

And even if all industrial pollution and auto emissions suddenly ceased today, Earth’s climate will warm at least 1 degree by the year 2100 and seas will rise 4 inches, says the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR).

Factor in the melting of glaciers and the ice caps, and seas could rise 8 inches through 2100 in the best-case scenario, says NCAR.

As winters get milder, changes occur underfoot and go largely unnoticed until critical thresholds are reached. Railroad tracks are deformed. Rocky peaks crack apart and spill into ravines. Whole mountainsides lose footing.

Ground in the Northern Hemisphere that’s been frozen since the last Ice Age is melting and collapsing. Animals are changing migration and mating habits.


While environmentalists and New Agers blame human activity, science devoid of an agenda tells a different story.

The journal Geophysical Research Letters reported recently that the Sun itself has increased its output, which it says could be as much as 30% to blame for the warming of the globe.

Reports in the late 1980s found the amount of sunlight reaching the planet’s surface had declined by 4 to 6 percent since 1960. Suddenly, around 1990, that appears to have reversed. And they admit that nobody knows what caused the apparent shift.

A third study also published in the journal found the Earth has reflected more sunlight back into space from 2000 to 2004 than in years prior.

Yet a fourth study examined what is called albedo, which is measured by the moon’s reflection of the Earth. The phenomenon, called ‘earthshine’, was first noted by Leonardo da Vinci.

Robert Charlson, a University of Washington atmospheric scientist, estimates that while science might be off, “30% in its understanding of global warming, but it could be off as much as 100%” in its understanding of the Earth’s albedo. In other words, science hasn’t a clue.

To summarize, then, it appears that whatever is coming upon the earth has already, to some limited extent, already arrived.

Jesus warned of signs in the sun, moon and stars. Solar storm activity in recent years has wreaked havoc on our communications systems. The sun itself has increased its output, wreaking havoc on our weather systems.

These signs in the sun, moon and stars are accompanied by the ‘distress of nations, with perplexity.’

More than 150 of them agreed in December to sign on to the Kyoto Treaty on global warming — and ‘perplexed’ accurately describes their reaction to the US refusal to join them.

Nobody knows what causes global warming, but it appears that the fear of what is coming upon the earth is enough to cause them to all band together and do SOMETHING, even if they don’t know what it should be.

It is abundantly clear to the world’s scientific community that the ‘powers of heaven are shaking — and that they are at a loss to explain why.

Jesus was addressing a specific question, ‘What will be the sign of Your coming and of the end of the age?’ when He predicted what science called ‘global warming’ and man’s reaction to the threat. But this was only part of the larger scenario.

Jesus tied it all to the budding ‘fig tree’ (used as a metaphor for Israel 33 times in Old Testament Scripture) saying, “So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand.”

He warned of wars, rumors of wars, famines, pestilences, earthquakes, likening them to ‘birth pangs’ or labor pains, increasing in frequency and intensity as the event approaches.

He said the generation that witnessed the restoration of Israel would see the fulfillment of all Bible prophecy, including His Second Coming.

“Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.” (Luke 21:32)

That generational time clock started ticking on May 14, 1948. The generation of the fig tree is pushing sixty.

Tick. . .Tick. . .Tick

Dawn of the Silly Season

Dawn of the Silly Season
Vol: 53 Issue: 8 Wednesday, February 8, 2006

As the American political establishment starts gearing up for the Silly Season’s off-year elections, nobody really has a handle on who will be in power when the dust settles.

Despite the total absence of a discernible policy agenda on the part of the Democrats, senior GOP officials are taking the possibility of a political rout seriously come November.

There are a number of areas where the Republicans are vulnerable. The steady drumbeat of negativism and defeatism over the war in Iraq from the left is beginning to take its toll, even among the party faithful.

The Democrats have all but succeeded in blunting any hint of US progress, ignoring in the process, a number of facts that will still be factual, even if they succeed in recapturing the majority.

The most glaring fact will likely only remain factual until after they regain power; since 9/11 there have been no successful attacks against the American homeland. The most obvious reason for that is also the least popularly-accepted.

One of the main criticisms against the war in Iraq is that it has made Iraq ‘a magnet for terrorists’. That criticism has been leveled again and again, usually by the Hollywood Left, but occasionally by one of the more dimly-lit of the Left’s political luminaries in Washington.

Because Iraq has become ‘a magnet for terrorists’ bombs are going off in Baghdad and not New York. Because Iraq has become a magnet for terrorists, the only Americans at risk are the bravest, strongest, healthiest, best-equipped and best-trained volunteers among us instead of ordinary American men, women and children going about their daily lives at home.

Three years ago, I wrote; “Bush killed two birds with one stone; first removing Saddam and secondly, luring al-Qaeda into a trap. The war with al-Qaeda is being fought outside the homeland, as promised.”

As I noted then; “This is not an apologetic for George Bush. To this point, there has not been a successful terrorist attack against the United States homeland in more than two years.”

“That isn’t a partisan fact ; it is a fact devoid of partisanship. The opposite of propaganda. Let’s look at in once more: “there has not been a successful terrorist attack against the United States homeland in more than two years”.”


There will be those who will read today’s briefing and come away with the impression this is a defense of George Bush, entirely missing the main point, which, in an odd way, serves to prove it.

It isn’t about partisanship. It is about political cynicism so calculating that it can make a case for losing a war as a winning political strategy, in effect.

It is also worth noting at this point that the split between the left and the right is as spiritual as it is political.

America’s political landscape is polarized around spiritual issues disguised as political ones, hence DNC Chairman Howard Dean’s comments about capturing the ‘gays, God and guns’ constituency – a reference to Christian, rather than political, opposition to the DNC’s main political platforms.

It would be appropriate at this juncture to update Volume 25, Issue 12 to read; There has not been a successful terrorist attack against the United States homeland in nearly five years.” But apart from that, not much has changed.

I closed that particular briefing (October 12, 2003) saying, “The useful idiots here at home are demanding the administration pull out our forces and bring them home. That wouldn’t end the battle. The enemy would still be out there. At best, it would just shift the battlefield right back to where it began. The American homeland.”

Here is what I thought was interesting. That column was written the year before the Republicans increased their majorities in both Houses.

Three years later, none of these material facts have changed. But those same facts are now a liability, for no discernible reason apart from the effects of a constant drumbeat of defeatist propaganda.

Take Rep. John Murtha’s oft-repeated charge that our forces are beaten and the war is ‘unwinnable’.

US losses ARE brutal — until one sits down and does the relative math using cold, hard numbers — devoid of leftist propaganda:

September 11, 2001 — 3000 dead in three coordinated attacks in a period of three hours. Nineteen terrorists killed.

March 2003 to present: 2200 dead in a coordinated terrorist offensive over a period of three years. Tens of thousands of terrorists killed.

According to the defeatist propaganda of the New York Times, that constitutes evidence that America is fighting a losing battle. To those who hate George Bush more than they love their country, it is a convincing enough argument.

Even one American killed is too many, but this isn’t a perfect world. But given the strategic differences between civilians facing terrorists in New York armed only with briefcases and sending the US Marines to fight them in Iraq, it is pretty obvious which SHOULD be the preferred option. But it isn’t.

The ‘withdrawal option’ that may hand power back to the Democrats makes the unspoken assumption that when the US withdraws, so will the terrorists.

Why would they do that? al-Qaeda didn’t go away after the US withdrew from Saudi Arabia, which was al-Qaeda’s initial complaint. Where will they go after the US withdraws from Iraq? It is an idiotic argument — but it is gaining ground.

Behold the power of the propagandists’ pen!

It is hard to imagine a more self-destructive idea than that of surrendering in the face of Islamic terror. One would think that it would be easier to sell icemakers to Eskimos than to campaign on surrender as a war strategy.

I used to read the prophecies of the Tribulation Period with something of a jaundiced eye. While I would read of the rise of antichrist, his sway over the population, his ability to sell himself as a god, I could never picture it in my mind’s eye. It seemed impossible that a society as sophisticated as ours could be so gullible.

But in a world where giving aid and comfort to the enemy during wartime is an act of patriotism, where eavesdropping on the enemy is an impeachable offense, and where military defeat is an acceptable price to pay for political victory, anything is possible.

“Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition.” (2nd Thessalonians 2:3)

Special Report: A One-Sided Peace Is Called ‘Surrender’

Special Report: A One-Sided Peace Is Called ‘Surrender’
Vol: 53 Issue: 7 Tuesday, February 7, 2006

When only one party to a conflict is pursuing peace, it doesn’t matter how one characterizes it, whether it be ‘negotiated settlement’ or ‘political compromise’ or even ‘enlightened self-interest’, whatever ‘peace’ ensues is the ‘peace’ of the conquered.

In the case of postwar Germany and Japan, peace was imposed on them by benevolent conquerors.

Had the war ended differently, the peace imposed on the west would be a very different kind. Peace without tranquilty is merely the absence of war.

The Danish cartoon incident raises all kinds of questions about the Islamic definition of ‘peace’. Apologists for ‘moderate’ Islam claim it is, at its heart, a peaceful religion and quote verse after verse from the Koran to support their arguments.

Most countries in Western Europe echo President Bush’s claim that the ‘vast majority’ of Muslims want to live in peace with the West, and that ‘radical Islam’ is a perversion of a peaceful religion by a demented few.

Even when taking a critical view of the ‘peaceful’ claims of Islam, most writers and columnists are quick to add something along the lines of, “of course, the vast majority of Muslims in the West live in peace in their communities” etc.

Until some obscure newspaper prints a dozen cartoons offensive to Islam. In moderate Jordan, the editor of a Jordanian newspaper was fired, then arrested, for reprinting the cartoons in an Amman newspaper.

In the Islamic democracy of Lebanon, at peace with the West despite its recent election of Hezbollah terrorists to its government, the Danish and Swedish embassies were burned to the ground.

That vast majority of peaceful Muslims living in the West smashed windows, burned Danish flags, pictures of Danish Prime Minister Rasmussen (and, predictably, American flags and pictures of George Bush) and attacked their non-Muslim neighbors in retaliation for the offense.

Moderate Muslims living at peace among their European host/neighbors gathered together to chant ‘Death to Denmark’, War on Denmark’ while carrying signs lettered “Freedom Go to Hell” and “Europe, Take Some Lessons From 9/11.”

All the cartoonists are now in hiding, in fear for their lives. The newspaper itself claimed more than 1,000 death threats.

While the newspapers are scouring the world over for moderate Muslim leaders willing to condemn the violence, they are universal in their reasoning, as articulated by a joint statement from the Organization of Islamic States: “Extreme reactions exceeding the limits of peaceful democratic actions are dangerous and damage the Muslim world’s efforts to defend a legitimate case.”

In other words, Islamic rage tends to blur the image of Islam as a noble religion of peace hijacked by a few terrorists.

It is hard enough to argue the case that those who follow the fundamentals of a religion are the aberration and those who stray from the fundamentals of a religion represent its typical adherents.

It is twice as hard when Islamic moderation includes death demands against those infidels living in their own, non-Islamic culture who don’t adhere to the Islamic fundamentals regarding blasphemy against the prophet.

European leaders are rushing to the podium to condemn the Islamic reaction while apologizing profusely for the press freedoms that provoked it. Most news organizations in the United States refused to risk the wrath of Islam by publishing the offending cartoons despite wall-to-wall coverage of the reaction to them.

CNN showed the cartoons, but pixelated them. Some Western countries banned them altogether out of concern for an Islamic backlash from the ‘moderate Muslims living at peace’ with them in their own countries.

As already noted, genuine peace can only exist between two sides that want peace. Without that reciprocal desire, one only gets ‘peace’ by paying tribute to prevent war.

Under that kind of peace, reprisal is no further away than the next ‘provocation’.

Religiously Christian

Religiously Christian
Vol: 53 Issue: 6 Monday, February 6, 2006

“Religion” is system of worship whereby man attempts to make himself acceptable to his God. That is why the word is universally applied to any system of theology.

Catholicism is a religion. Hinduism is a religion. Islam is a religion. Even secular humanism is a religion, recognized as such by no less a secular authority than the Supreme Court. (Torcaso v Watkins, 1961). Secular humanism dictates man is his own supreme being, and is the systematic endeavor to reconcile man unto himself.

Of all the world’s great religions, the only one to which the appellation ‘religion’ is wholly inaccurate is that of Christianity.

Whereas religion, with all its rituals, sacrifices and dogma, constitutes man’s way of making himself acceptable to God, Christianity is a system where God makes man acceptable unto Himself.

That is not a distinction without a difference. Christianity is the mirror image of religion — its core doctrines might even be called ‘anti-religious’.

Religions demand adherence to certain rules and regulations as a condition of salvation. Those rules are compiled by religious men, set forth as the defining characteristics of that religion, and followed by its religious adherents, if they are to remain in good standing with their religion, and therefore, with God.

Religion, in all its forms, is a series of theological laws that must be kept by its followers in order to make themselves acceptable to whatever their understanding of God might be. Christianity is accepting God’s definition of Himself.

Jesus Christ was put to death for exposing the hypocrisy of religion. Not just the religious leaders, but religion itself. When the religious leaders tried to trap Him with the Law, He exposed the hypocrisy of religion for all to see.

“Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting Him, and saying, Master, which is the great commandment in the law?”

“Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” (Matthew 22:35-40)

Loving God above all things and loving one’s neighbor as oneself is God’s ‘law’. Religion is a man-made substitute system that offers alternative choices. Historically, more wars have been fought over religion than any other cause, many in the name of the ‘Christian religion.’

But Bible Christianity teaches that our war is this life is spiritual; “not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” (Ephesians 6:12)

That is not to say true Christians are forbidden to go to war, as in the case of the current war on terror. Christians are not OF this world, but we are IN it.

As secular national citizens, Christians are admonished “to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work,” (Titus 3:1) But that is not the same as banding together to conquer for Christ’s glory. That is a religious concept, not a Christian one.

The true source of religion — and its underlying concepts — was revealed in Scripture BEFORE the fall of Adam.


“For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.” (Genesis 3:5)

Let’s break the oldest lie in the Book down into its component elements;

1) “Your eyes shall be opened.”

The serpent begins by hinting that God is deliberately withholding beneficial information from them. The argument that some Scriptures seem to require salvation by faith plus works, while others seem to support eternal security stems from that seminal deception — that God’s Word is ambiguous when examined closely.

2) “Ye shall be as gods.”

It goes against the grain of human pride to believe that the only role we play in our own salvation is to accept a free gift of unearned pardon. Most human religions — including most Christian denominations — insist that mankind play some role in his redemption.

In this view, the sacrifice of the Cross is not enough — it is just a kick-start that gets us going. We must then perform at a certain level or that sacrifice is negated by our own failed efforts.

3) “Knowing good from evil.”

This goes back to the belief that we humans can know WHICH sins are sufficient to disqualify us from heaven and which ones God will let slide because they weren’t as evil — which is the ONLY rationale for rejecting the doctrine of eternal security.

There are seemingly as many religions within Christianity as there are religions outside Christianity. Religions within Christianity are Christian in the sense that they claim Christ as their Lord, but write their own rules to substitute for His standard of salvation by works.

The Lord’s standard for salvation by works is somewhat harsh:

“As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.” (Romans 3:10-12)

So religion attempts to rewrite the rules, claiming unto itself special righteousness and understanding provides it with insights that make it unique in that it ‘seeketh after God’, claiming unprofitable rituals and sacrifices are now profitable, and organizing itself to ‘do good.’

Religious Christianity is a system that substitutes its own, more attainable standards of conduct for God’s standard of perfection, adding temporal punishments and penalties as atonements for the inevitable failure of its adherents.

When discussing the doctrine of eternal security, I note that most argue the phrase, not the doctrine. The doctrine of eternal security is the essential difference between religion and Bible Christianity.

The terms used to describe salvation scream ‘eternally secure’. “Eternal life” (John 3:16, 1st John 5:11), “full assurance” (Hebrews 6:11, Colossians 2:2), “hope. . . sure and steadfast” (Hebrews 6:19)

Salvation is described in Scripture, not as something yet to come, but present-tense. Each true believer is described as “forgiven” (Romans 4:7, 1st John 2:12), “justified” (Romans 5:1,9, Titus 3:7), “reconciled” (Romans 5:19) “risen with Christ” (Romans 6:3-6, Colossians 3:1-2) a “new creation” (2nd Corinthians 5:17)

Believers are “complete in Him” (Colossians 2:10), already “citizens of heaven” (Philippians 3:20), “sanctified once and for all” (Hebrews 10:10) and “perfected forever.” (Hebrews 10:14)

The Bible says of believers that we ARE: “God’s family” Galatians 3:26, 1st John 3:2), effectively ALREADY “seated in the heavenlies with Christ” (Ephesians 2:5-6) and “translated into the kingdom of His dear Son” Colossians 1:13)

Salvation cannot be lost unless one discounts the following core doctrines: Salvation is eternal (John 3:16, 36), it is a present possession (Romans 5, 1st Peter 2:24-25) it is imputed, not earned, (2nd Corinthians 5:17, Galatians 2:20, Hebrews 9:10, Romans 3:24, Ephesians 2:8-9,Titus 3:3-7, Romans 3:19-28, 4:4-5, 11:16)

Eternal security is NOT a license to sin. It is important to understand that eternal security does not apply to a person who merely professes Christ. Salvation demands repentance.

Repentance means a change of mind resulting in a change of life. The person who has never changed his mind about God, sin, Christ, the Bible, etc., has never repented and has never been saved.

Rather than granting license to sin, the Bible teaches that the grace of God actually motivates believers to serve God with a thankful heart. (Romans 2:4, Ephesians 3:14,-19, Titus 2:11-14)

A sinning believer is out of fellowship with the Lord, but the relationship remains the same. He is helped and loved by the Lord Jesus Christ (1st John 2:1-2). He is chastened by the Father (Hebrews 12:5-11) BECAUSE the relationship remains intact.

Although forgiven, a sinning Christian cannot regain lost opportunities or the hurt caused by his sin. And the sinning Christian will suffer loss as the Bema Seat. (1st Corinthians 3:11-15, 2nd Corinthians 5:10, 1st John 2:28)

Logically, to deny the doctrine of eternal security is to embrace religion as an acceptable way to please God.

But God says those who stand before Him trusting in their works will be judged ACCORDING to their works. Those who stand before Him trusting in the Promise that Christ’s Work at the Cross was all sufficient will be judged according to that standard.

“If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.” (1st Corinthians 3:15)

Religion doesn’t save us. It can’t keep us. There is only One Who can “keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy.” (Jude 1:24)

Trust Him.