The Truth About Denial

The Truth About Denial
Vol: 71 Issue: 23 Thursday, August 23, 2007

That is what Newsweek promised last week in its cover story. Under the headline, “The Truth About Denial” it promised to tell the truth about what it calls “global warming deniers.”

Even the label is loaded — the phrase ‘global warming deniers’ has the same flavor as the phrase, “Holocaust deniers” — it conjures up images of far-right extremists who refuse, for their own nefarious purposes, to acknowledge the evidence of massive human tragedy right before their eyes.

Given the overwhelming evidence attesting to the Holocaust,Holocaust deniers are almost religiously blind; it wouldn’t matter if they had been eyewitnesses to Auschwitz, they would still deny that Germany systematically set out to destroy the Jewish race.

That is the reason for the label, ‘global warming deniers — it carries with it the sense of blind defiance on an almost mystical level. How could anybody deny something when, to quote Senator Barbara Boxer, the evidence is “unequivocal.”

In fact, the evidence is almost childishly simple.

In Newsweek’s April, 1975 issue, the magazine was predicting the onset of another Ice Age. Citing “ominous signs that the earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically,” the magazine warned of an impending “drastic decline in food production.”

Political disruptions stemming from food shortages could affect “just about every nation on earth.” Scientists urged governments to consider emergency action to head off the terrible threat of global cooling.

To be fair, it wasn’t just Newsweek that was predicting we’d all be living in igloos by 2007. TIME Magazine also ran a 1975 cover story predicting the onset of a new Ice Age.

But that was 1975. This time, they are not only absolutely certain that they are right, but any disagreement with their assessments is nothing short of scientific heresy. This time, the evidence is unequivocal!

Ahem. The evidence was ‘unequivocal’ the last time, too.

Last time, they argued that it would take only a tiny tilt of the Earth’s rotation to plunge it into a deep freeze.

Both magazines sought out the most respectable scientists to underscore their point that the earth was about to freeze to death in another Ice Age. Among their principle sources was Isaac Asimov, the science fiction writer.

Defending its failed 1975 prediction, Newsweek says this week, “Some scientists indeed thought the Earth might be cooling in the 1970s, and some laymen even one as sophisticated and well-educated as Isaac Asimov saw potentially dire implications for climate and food production.”

Hold everything! Isn’t that what they are saying now, only in reverse? In 1975, all our crops were gonna freeze, causing a worldwide food shortage. In 2007, all our crops are gonna burn up, causing a worldwide food shortage.

In 1975, the scientists and laymen who thought the Earth was entering a new Ice Age did so based on the climate record of the preceding three decades.

Thirty years later, the “settled” science uses the climate record of the preceding three centuries, and therefore, (based on the climate record of preceding three decades,) the earth is undergoing catastrophic global warming.

Since the science is “settled” the recent revelation that the data used was flawed is “irrelevant.” (As noted, this time they’re positively positive they aren’t as wrong as they were in 1975).

A Canadian amateur climatologist, Steve McIntyre, dissected their data and found an uncorrected Y2K bug that changed the hottest year in history from 1998, supporting global warming, to 1934, supporting, er, common sense.

The corrected figures show that 4 of the 10 warmest years in the US occurred during the 1930s. Rather than thanking McIntyre for pointing out an error in their calculations, NASA dismissed the error as “inconsequential” to their conclusion.

NASA climatologist Gavin Schmidt told the LA Times; “The data adjustment changes ‘the inconsequential bragging rights for certain years in the U.S.,’ he said. “But ‘global warming is a global issue, and the global numbers show that there is no question that the last five to 10 years have been the hottest period of the last century.’ “

(“You see? the science is ‘settled’. Therefore, the data error is inconsequential, since we were half right! Now, don’t interrupt! The March Hare is about to recite a poem!”)

The Bible defines ‘faith’ this way: “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” (Hebrews 11:1)

Global warming isn’t a science. It’s a religion.


The religion of global warming is rooted in “settled” science that is actually based in the observations of the last thirty years, rather than the last three hundred.

Until global warming became a religion, it was a matter of scientific fact that until 1900, the world had been going through a three hundred year long cold ‘snap’ dubbed “The Little Ice Age.”

It was also a matter of scientific fact that the “Little Ice Age” was measured against its predecessor, the “Medieval Warming Period” that occurred between 1000 AD and the mid-14th century.

Since the Little Ice Age only ended about 100 years ago, without the Medieval Warming Period to compare it to, we wouldn’t KNOW it was the “Little Ice Age.” It would be the ‘historical average temperature’.

It isn’t as warm now as it was during the Medieval Warming Period (MWP). Greenland is still 84% ice. When it was discovered and settled by the Vikings during the MWP, it was called “Greenland” because it was green and habitable. Then it got cold during the Little Ice Age and they left. (I learned this in 7th grade.)

So, it was warm for four hundred years. Then it got cold for three hundred more. Then, in 1900, after being cold for three hundred years, it started to warm so rapidly that, by the 1930’s, the heat and drought caused massive crop failures.

Five of the ten hottest years on record were during this period.

Then, in 1940, another cold ‘snap’ settled in — the one most of us grew up in. That was the cold snap that, by 1975, had Newsweek and TIME convinced that we were on the road to another Ice Age.

Today, Newsweek is utterly confident that, based on the “settled science” we are on the road to catastrophic global warming, flawed data and climate history notwithstanding. The “settled science” upon which this is based is the same science used to predict tomorrow’s weather.

Most major cities have three local stations. Most local stations have local weather forecasts. All use the same ‘settled’ science. Every day, all three give slightly different forecasts. Rain, high of 76 . . . or is it a chance of rain and 72? Then the third guy splits the difference and forecasts 74 and partly sunny.

Go to the three five-day forecasts and one would think each forecast was for a different part of the country.

That is the ‘settled science’ they started with. State of the art, 21st century weather forecasting equipment and technology — like that used by your three local weather forecasters.

Then, it turns out that the data they input into this state of the art, 21st century weather forecasting equipment and technology that forecasts three alternative scenarios each day, was flawed. No matter. The science is “settled”. Anybody who says otherwise is immediately branded a “heretic.”

The faith in global warming goes beyond science and into the realm of religion.

“Heretic” is a religious term. It’s classic meaning is “person who has expressed formal denial or doubt of any defined doctrine of the church.” I typed the word “heretic” into Google’s news search engine.

The first hit I got was the headline: “A Conversation with an Energy Heretic.”

There have been all kinds of candidates for the religion of the antichrist and environmentalism certainly deserves consideration. Al Gore uses ten times the energy of the average family, travels in private jets, limos and SUV’s and claims to live a ‘carbon-neutral’ lifestyle — and his followers accept it without question.

I don’t think it is THE religion of antichrist, but it will certainly find a home there.

Among the signs of the last days, according to Jesus Christ, would 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)”

Global warming ‘heretics’ note that recent and unprecedented solar eruptions are the best explanation for the recent warming spell. They note that similar warming is occurring on Mars, which has no atmosphere to pollute nor people to pollute it.

But whole nations are distressed and perplexed about the threat of catastrophic global warming because it is warmer now than it was thirty-five years ago when we were anticipating a new Ice Age.

Al Gore warns the sea will reclaim most of the world’s coastlines within fifty years. His “Inconvenient Truth” slide show actually contains images of ‘the sea and the waves roaring’.

It is the “powers of heaven” — the extremes of wind, rain, heat, cold, that is behind the fear, and the global warming predictions are nothing less than that they will be ‘shaken’ by catastrophic global warming.

Is global warming real? I don’t know, but I seriously doubt it. What the Bible actually predicts is fear of the perception of something like global warming, not the actual event itself.

It is that perception, and its attending fear that points to the fulfillment of Bible prophecy. If we aren’t worrying about global warming, we are spending billions looking for the Next Killer Asteroid.

The same passage in Luke also predicts, “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)

Rightly Dividing the Rapture

Rightly Dividing the Rapture
Vol: 71 Issue: 22 Wednesday, August 22, 2007

Every time I publish a column on the pre-Trib Rapture of the Church, I invite arguments and challenges from those who are just as convinced that the Rapture occurs at a later time, or even that we are already in the early part of the Tribulation.

I decided years ago against entering into debates about the timing of the Rapture for two obvious reasons. (Obvious, at least, to me.)

The first is because I don’t want to encourage people to put their faith in their salvation on their understanding of the Rapture Doctrine.

I’ve heard from people who accuse me of not being saved because I don’t share their interpretation. Salvation comes by faith in the shed Blood of Christ as full payment for the sins of the believer who trusts Him.

Pre-trib, Mid-trip, Pre-wrath, Post-trib, no-trib, these are doctrinal interpretations — the ‘strong meat’ of doctrine. But the writer of Hebrews cautions;

“For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.” (Hebrews 5:12)

The ‘principles of the oracles of God’ are that man is a sinner, that by God’s grace He has made a way of salvation, and the way of salvation is by faith through trust in Jesus Christ. These are eternal principles.

The second reason is because it is an unprovable argument. Until it happens, nobody will know who is right. After it happens, nobody will care. So why argue about it at all?

On the other hand, it is my calling to teach the truth of Scripture as God has given me to understand it. And I believe the pre-Trib Rapture is key to understanding the unfolding outline of Bible prophecy for the last days. I don’t teach it to convince anybody otherwise. It simply forms the basis of my understanding of unfolding events.

The issue of when Jesus Christ will return for His Church, relative to the Tribulation Period, is a topic of great interest to this generation, because it is this generation that will either participate in the event or be left behind whenever it happens.

But I believe the other arguments misplace their focus when it comes to the issue of the Rapture — they see the event, but miss how it fits together in the overall plan of God. It gets magnified all out of proportion to its actual role — it becomes a ‘Great Escape’ for Christians instead of a necessary included element in a larger plan.

Once separated from its context, the Rapture can be viewed as an event in and of itself. And once viewed from this perspective, it doesn’t make much theological difference where on the last days’ timeline one puts it.

On the other hand, taken in the context of the overall outline of prophecy for the last days, placing it anywhere within the timeline of the seven year Tribulation Period throws everything else on the timeline out of context.

There is a distinct difference between the Church and the Kingdom. The Church is compared to a house, a body, but never to a kingdom. Christ is the Head of the Church, but never referred to as its King.

He is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, but His spiritual relationship to the Church is that of Bridegroom. The Church’s spiritual relationship to Him is that we are, corporately, the Body of Christ.

The Church is the Body of Christ, made up of living members, an organism, rather than an organization. In the same way our human body manifests our personality, the Church is for the purpose of manifesting His Personality. The only way the world can see Christ is through the Church.

The Kingdom of Heaven was what Jesus came to set up on earth at His First Advent. Until He was rejected by the Jews, His ministry was focused exclusively on the Jews and the Kingdom of Heaven. When Jesus sent out the Apostles, two by two, it was to the Jews:

“Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not; but go rather to the ‘lost sheep’ of the HOUSE OF ISRAEL, and as ye go, preach, saying– ‘The Kingdom of Heaven is AT HAND.’ Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils (demons).” (Matthew 10:5-8).

Note that the works they were to perform were “Kingdom SIGNS,” but had no reference to the salvation of the soul. They did not preach the “Gospel of Salvation,” but the “Gospel of the Kingdom.”

The “Gospel of Salvation” is for the whole world, but the Disciples were forbidden to go to any but the “House of Israel,” thus showing that what they preached was exclusively for Israel.

The Kingdom Age is in two parts. It is both a past and future Dispensation, referring to both Israel under the Judges in the past, and looking forward to the Millennial Kingdom to come.

The Kingdom is an outward, visible and political organization to be set up by Christ during the Millennial Dispensation. The Church is a spiritual organization.

In between the two is the Dispensation of the Church.

The First Advent of Christ took place in two stages. In the first stage, Jesus took on the form of a man via His Virgin Birth at Bethlehem. The second stage was when He ascended into Heaven.

At His ascension, two angels were standing nearby, “Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen Him go into heaven.” (Acts 1:11)

The Bible predicts His Second Advent will also take place in two stages. In Stage One, Jesus will return precisely as the angels told the Apostles He would;

“For the Lord Himself shall descend with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and the dead in Christ shall rise first; then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds. . .” (1st Thessalonians 4:17)

In Stage Two, Jude 14 tells us, “Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of His Saints. . .” Notice that Jude doesn’t say He comes FOR His Saints, but WITH them.

So, at the First Stage, He comes secretly in the air. At the Second Stage, He comes publicly, “where every eye can see Him” and stand again on the Mount of Olives from which He ascended, as foretold by the Prophet Zechariah (Zecaraiah 14:1-4).

Stage One is to fulfill His Promises to the Church. “For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto His glorious body, according to the working whereby He is able even to subdue all things unto Himself.” (Philippians 3:20-21)


I teach a pre-Trib Rapture because, as a pre-Trib event, it has a place in the plan of God. If it isn’t a pre-Trib event, then it serves no discernible purpose. Follow along with me, here.

The pre-Tribulational purpose for the Rapture is NOT a “Great Escape” for the Church, but a necessary included element of the Tribulation Period. How so, you ask? The Tribulation Period is a time set aside to two Biblically defined purposes. The first is to bring judgment upon a Christ-rejecting world.

“Neither repented they of their murders, nor of their sorceries, nor of their fornication, nor of their thefts.” (Revelation 18:23)

The second reason for the Tribulation is to bring about the national redemption of the Jews. While the Church is being judged at the Judgment Seat of Christ in the air, the Jews will be judged under Antichrist on the earth.

God’s promises to the Jews are earthly; they are the inheritors of the earth, it logically follows that their judgment must be of an earthly character.

The Church was judged at the Cross. It is neither wicked nor Christ rejecting. It has no logical role to play during the Tribulation.

The Tribulation “saints” are those who are led to Christ by the 144,000 Jewish evangelists (Revelation 7) and they cannot be the Church, since Revelation 13:7 says that the antichrist is able to “overcome” them.

During the Dispensation of the Church Age, “whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.” (1st John 5:4)

“Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?” (1st John 5:5)

It is not possible for the world to overcome Church Age saints. It is possible for the world to overcome the Tribulation saints.

The ministry of the Holy Spirit must be withdrawn from the earth in order for the antichrist’s evil to proceed unrestrained.

“For the mystery of iniquity doth already work, only He who now restrains will continue to restrain, until He be taken out of the way.” (2nd Thessalonians 2:7) There is only one “He” that restrains evil, and that is the Holy Spirit.

Since the Holy Spirit indwells me, and the Scriptures say the antichrist cannot be revealed as long as He does, it then logically follows that either He leaves me spiritually alone to face the greatest spiritual crisis in human history, or when the Restrainer is removed, the vessels that He indwells will be removed with Him.

It is NOT a “Great Escape” for one generation of Christians, somewhere in time. It is a fulfillment of a promise made by Jesus Christ to ALL Christians in ALL generations: “And I will pray the Father, and He shall give you another Comforter, that He may abide with you for ever” (John 14:16)

Those who see the Rapture as a “Great Escape” are seeing only a tiny piece of the Big Picture. The Rapture isn’t an escape for Christians, it is a necessary part of the judgment against those who rejected Him.

By any possible understanding of the mechanism of salvation, those who are saved are, by virtue of the shed Blood of Christ, deemed to be judicially innocent. Everybody clear on that part?

“There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” (Romans 8:1) This is either an eternal truth, or it is not.

If the Church is in the Tribulation, then God is bringing judgment against the innocent. I found at least 21 references to the phrase “innocent blood” in Scripture. Here is a representative example:

“Thus saith the LORD; Execute ye judgment and righteousness, and deliver the spoiled out of the hand of the oppressor: and do no wrong, do no violence to the stranger, the fatherless, nor the widow, neither shed innocent blood in this place.” (Jeremiah 22:2)

Judgment is ordered against the guilty, but the innocent are spared.

I am either innocent of my sins by the grace of God by virtue of the shed Blood of Christ, and therefore redeemed and eligible for heaven, or I am guilty of my sins and deserve to be judged for them.

I cannot be judged as both innocent and guilty. That makes no sense.

The Tribulation Period is a time of judgment for sin. There are twenty-one separate judgments pronounced against those who dwell upon the earth during the Tribulation.

Either that judgment falls on the guilty and the innocent, or it falls on the guilty alone. Logic and deductive reasoning both demand that, assuming the revealed nature of God and the imputed righteousness of Christ, judgment falls on the guilty alone.

God has no reason to bring judgment on the innocent. And everything we know about regeneration demands accepting the premise that those covered by the Blood of Christ are innocent as babes in the eyes of God — or heaven would remain empty, since no sin or sinner can exist there.

Logic and deductive reasoning, coupled with chapter and verse of Scripture, reveal that God does not have a double-standard regarding our innocence; ie; we are guilty here and innocent in the hereafter.

If that were true, we could not expect Him to hear our prayers in the here and now, since the only prayer God hears from the lost is the prayer for salvation.

If we are innocent of sin by virtue of our redemption right now, so that we can go boldly before the Throne of God and present Him with our petitions, then we are not, at this moment, under the judgment of sin. And the Tribulation is exclusively dedicated to the judgment of sin.

I said earlier that, if the Rapture isn’t a pre-Trib event, it serves no discernible purpose. A pre-Trib Rapture as part of the evacuation of the ministry of the Holy Spirit serves the purpose of accomplishing that evacuation. It prepares the earth for judgment by leaving only the guilty for it to fall on.

It allows for the Judgment Seat of Christ, the Marriage Supper of the Lamb, explains the heavenly perspective of Revelation 4:1 and forward, and requires no Scriptural gymnastics to make it all fit.

I can think of no discernible purpose for a mid-Trib or post-Trib Rapture other than some kind of Great Escape for Christians Only.

There is a reason why I believe, and teach — but don’t argue over — a pre-Trib Rapture. Bible prophecy is unfolding like a jigsaw puzzle — each piece fitting together with another piece, gradually revealing a greater part of the Big Picture.

I use the jigsaw analogy because each element of Bible prophecy is dependent on all the others for the Big Picture to emerge — a Bible discipline called systematic theology.

Each individual event is part of flow; Israel had to be reborn for Europe, Russia, the Middle East, etc., to align according to Bible prophecy. Until Israel took its place in history, none of the other prophesied events could move forward.

The Rapture has its natural place in the flow of events leading to the visible 2nd Coming of Christ. Move it around, and other events, like the Marriage Supper of the Lamb, Believer’s judgment, etc., get crowded forward into the Millennial Kingdom.

The flow is interrupted and compensation has to be made by allegorizing or spiritualizing heavenly events to make it all fit.

Move the Rapture and God must change His nature and judge the innocent with the guilty. The Promise of Christ that the Holy Spirit would indwell me forever must be re-interpreted.

Put the Church in the Tribulation and the purpose of the Tribulation must be reinterpreted to somehow include those who are neither Christ-rejecting or unredeemed.

Put the Church in the Tribulation and the Bible contradicts itself, and those who can’t be overcome now suddenly can, then.

If the Church is in the Tribulation, Daniel’s prophecy about the seventieth week being for the redemption of Jews, AND Paul’s description of the Tribulation as a time of judgment against unbelievers are diluted.

The whole outline changes. Judgment is no longer THE reason for the Tribulation, since it falls on the innocent and the guilty alike, like a tornado.

The entire unfolding Plan of God is changed, and events can be moved around like chess pieces to make it all fit all kinds of theories. Do you see it?

What you end up with is hundreds of competing theories about the last days, all of which can be supported by Scriptures, but all of them different. It is what we have now.

THAT is why I teach a pre-Trib Rapture as being key to understanding unfolding Bible prophecy. If there is not a clear distinction between the Dispensation of the Church and the Final Dispensation of Daniel’s 70th Week, anything becomes possible.

If one is open to the idea that there is more than one possibility, then the result is more than one version of doctrinal truth.

The Apostle Paul taught a pre-Trib Rapture. The overall flow of Scripture for the last days requires a pre-Trib Rapture for there to be a systematic blueprint against which to overlay Bible prophecy.

One doesn’t have to agree with a pre-Trib Rapture to be saved. So I don’t debate it. But I can’t teach from any other perspective

And I am unlikely to shift my view to any other unless each and every objection outlined above can be answered without torturing Scripture. And it can’t. I’ve tried.

There is a test that I apply to determine the rightly divided Word of God. It is the same test used for a mathematical equation. If you are dividing it right, you can’t come up with alternative answers.

You get the same one every time.

“No Coke For You!”

“No Coke For You!”
Vol: 71 Issue: 21 Tuesday, August 21, 2007

It has been four years since the Islamic government of Sudan launched its genocide against non-Muslims living in the Darfur region of that country.

The United Nation’s own experts estimate that more than 200,000 non-Muslims have died at the hands of Khartoum-backed Islamic Janjaweed forces. Another 2.5 million people have been driven from their homes.

I think that last sentence would have more impact if I hadn’t contracted the number. Let’s try again. 2,500,000 people have been driven from their homes. Hmmm. That still doesn’t have the impact it should have.

Think of it his way. Imagine the entire population of metropolitan Buffalo, NY being slaughtered, with the rest of the state homeless and crowded into New York City. That is an approximate equivalent to the carnage being inflicted on Sudan’s dwindling non-Muslim population.

This isn’t the first African genocide the United Nations has allowed to run its course. During 100 days in 1994, Hutu militia groups systematically slaughtered almost a million ethnic Tutsis.

Ten years later, to mark the anniversary of the slaughter, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan suggested the world ‘apologize’ for the UN’s inaction by setting aside a moment of silence.

“And let us, by what we do in one single minute, send a message – a message of remorse for the past, resolve to prevent such a tragedy from ever happening again – and let s make it resound for years to come,” Annan proclaimed.

Upon learning that the penalty for genocide was a global moment of silence, the Janjaweed started sharpening their machetes.

In July of 2004, Human Rights Watch released a report revealing internal government documents showing that the central government both armed and coordinated the Janjaweed to carry out the Sudan genocide.

In addition, the government has gone to great lengths to make sure that no news reporters or humanitarian personnel are allowed into the villages being targeted in Darfur.

The word ‘janjaweed’ means ‘hordes’ in colloquial Arabic, but means ‘faith warriors’ in the Sudanese dialect.

They are armed by the government and sent into various African villages where they proceed to kill civilians of all ages, burn down houses, destroy crops and livestock, carry out mass executions, target vital infrastructure, and commit wide-scale rape.

Reports coming out of the region speak regularly of such brutal acts as men being chained together and thrown into burning huts, women being raped in front of their loved ones, and children being kidnapped from their families.

The slave trade in the Sudan is every bit as brutal as was the US slave trade prior to the Civil War. A number of private Christian charities, frustrated at the UN’s continued willingness to look the other way, — great swelling words about Rwanda notwithstanding — have even begun buying back slaves from their masters.

Christian Solidarity International, based in Zurich, has, since 1995, bought and emancipated 5,942 Sudanese children, at a cost of about $50 per child.

For their efforts, UNICEF spokeswoman Marie Heuzer described the slave redemption program as “intolerable” after Christian Solidarity raised the topic by appealing to Secretary General Kofi Annan to condemn slavery in Sudan and to create a special program to trace and free enslaved women and children.

He didn’t. Neither has Ban Ki-Moon. The enslavement and the slaughter continues.


The United States is the only country to officially declare the slaughter in Darfur to be genocide, but that is about all that it has done.

Is it possible that Washington may have been scared off by Sudan’s dire threat of economic retaliation?

John Ukec Lueth Ukec, the Sudanese ambassador to Washington, held a press conference in May to respond to the charge:

“The United States is the only country saying that what is happening in Darfur is a genocide,” Ukec shouted. “I think this is a pretext.” Questioned about the 400,000 dead, Ukec denied it. When asked about the 2 million displaced refugees, he replied, “I am not a statistician,” before letting go with Sudan’s counter threat:

“I want you to know that the gum arabic which runs all the soft drinks all over the world, including the United States, mainly 80 percent is imported from my country,” the ambassador said, ominously raising a bottle of Coca-Cola.

A reporter asked if Sudan was threatening to “stop the export of gum arabic and bring down the Western world.”

“I can stop that gum arabic and all of us will have lost this,” Ukek warned, gesturing melodramatically with his bottle of Coke. “But I don’t want to go that way.”

So there you have it! He doesn’t want to take away our Cokes . . . but one false move, and . . well, you get the idea.

One would suspect that the US might even risk its supply to Coca-Cola, given the recent publication of a 2004 document signed by Sudanese presidential adviser Majzoub Al Khalifa, said to have been acting on behalf of the ruling National Congress Party.

Al Khalifa and military commanders ordered Sudanese government agencies to enable “foreign jihadis who came to Sudan with Osama Bin Laden in 1994 to resume their political activities in Sudan given the circumstances surrounding foreign intervention in Darfur to support armed forces and the people of Sudan to fight Zionist enemies,” the document, dated April 27, 2004, said.

The document was discovered and published by the Kosh Liberation Movement. The document also claims that Syria used al-Qaeda to test chemical weapons in attacks on rebel-held civilian villages in the Sudanese province.

The 2004 directive also restored all al-Qaeda property and bank accounts confiscated in 1996. The document, a copy of which was sent to both al-Qaeda as well as President Omar Bashir, was the first time that Sudan officially outlined its support for al-Qaeda.

The slaughter in Darfur is what al-Qaeda hopes to bring to a neighborhood near you. It is the face of the enemy laid bare for all to see. The chance for either slavery or death, depending on the mood of the ‘hordes’ of ‘faith warriors.’

Darfur is not a political problem or a UN issue — it is a direct front in the war on terror. If the Islamic ‘hordes’ are successful in the Sudan, it will take more than a moment of silence to stop them next time.

The Bible speaks of four spheres of world power in the last days; Gog-Magog, the Kings of the East, the revived Roman Empire and the Kings of the South.

The Gog Magog Alliance is assembled. The Kings of the East are preparing their forces. The European effort to revive the old Roman Empire is largely a success.

The fourth sphere of power, the Kings of the South, is depicted by Daniel as a fierce African alliance: “And the king of the south shall be strong, and one of his princes; and he shall be strong above him, and have dominion; his dominion shall be a great dominion.” (Daniel 11:5)

“And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over.” (Daniel 11:40)

“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)

Ages and Dispensations

Ages and Dispensations
Vol: 71 Issue: 20 Monday, August 20, 2007

We often refer to the time in which we live as the Age of Grace, but, theologically speaking, it isn’t exactly correct. Actually, we are living near the end of the Age of Human Government, during the Dispensation of Grace.

We tend to use the term ‘age’ and ‘Dispensation’ interchangeably, but actually, they are distinct terms that describe different concepts.

Theologically speaking, the difference between an “Age” and a “Dispensation” is that an “Age” stands for a period between two great physical changes in the earth’s surface, while a “Dispensation” stands for a “moral” or “probationary” period in the world’s history.

A Dispensation, therefore, denotes a period of time when God dealt with man under a specific set of rules.

For illustration, the “Present Age” began with “The Flood,” and ends with the return of Christ to the Mount of Olives at His Second Coming.

The Flood caused such physical and climatic changes that the length of human life was reduced from 900 to 100 years.

While the Dispensations are probationary periods, Divine administration is different, and contains progressive revelation with each Dispensation.

There are three distinct ‘ages’ and seven different identifiable Dispensations. The three Ages of Man are the Antediluvian (before the Flood) this Present Age, (Flood to the 2nd Coming) and the Age of Ages (Millennial Kingdom) to come.

During the Antediluvian Age, men lived nearly 1,000 years. In this Present Age, our lifespans are much more limited. During the Age of Ages, mankind will resume his Antediluvian longevity.

Within those ages of man, there were are seven identifiable Dispensations;

Eden, Antediluvian, Postdiluvian, Patriarchal, Legal (Law) Ecclesiastical (Church) Messianic (Kingdom) and finally, the Fullness of Times (Eternity Future).

The Postdiluvian Dispensation is known as the Dispensation of Human Government. It was followed by the Patriarchal Dispensation that lasted from the Call of Abraham until the Exodus from Egypt.

The giving of the Ten Commandments to Moses ushered in the Dispensation of the Law, which then lasted until the Law was fulfilled on Calvary by Jesus Christ.

During these different Dispensations, God judged man according to the revelation as given. God gave Moses the Law, and then judged Israel according to how well or how poorly they kept it.

We are now in the Dispensation of Grace, a period of time during which salvation is extended as a free gift to whosoever will receive it and judgment is reserved for those who reject it.

Like each of the previous Dispensations of God, the Dispensation of Grace has an identifiable beginning, and an identifiable end. The Edenic Dispensation ended with the Fall of Man. The Antediluvian with the Flood, the Patriarchal with Moses, etc.


Each Dispensation begins and ends with a progressive revelation from God. The Patriarchal Dispensation began with God’s revelation to Abraham, and it ended with God’s revelation of the Law of Moses.

The Dispensation of the Law began with the Ten Commandments, and ended with the fulfulment of the Law on the Cross. The Dispensation of Grace, what we commonly call the “Church Age” began at Pentecost with the indwelling of believers by the Holy Spirit.

In the previous Dispensation, man was guided by the Law as given to Moses. In this Dispensation, man is guided by the Holy Spirit of God Who lives and dwells in him.

According to the Prophet Daniel, there remains one unfulfilled week (of years) of the Dispensation of the Law. The remaining seven years of the Law will take place at the conclusion of the Dispensation of Grace, and is distinct and separate from the Dispensation of Grace.

Like the Dispensation of Grace, it will also begin with progressive Divine revelation. Daniel’s Seventieth Week is also the last Dispensation of this Present Age.

So, where is this all leading? As we’ve seen, there are three Ages and Seven Dispensations of God. All have an identifiable starting point. And all have an identifiable end point. So, where is the identifiable end point for the Dispensation of Grace?

Let’s revisit what sets the Dispensation of Grace apart by looking at its starting point.

“And there appeared to them parted tongues, as of fire, and it sat upon each one of them. And they were all filled with [the] Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other tongues as the Spirit gave to them to speak forth.” (Acts 2:3-4)

Acts tells us that, once indwelt, the Apostle Peter, the coward who previously denied Christ three times, stood up boldly and gave the Gospel to the multitude, and Acts 2:41 tells us “and there were added in that day about three thousand souls.”

What sets the Dispensation of Grace apart from the Dispensation of the Law is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The Dispensation of Grace has as identifiable an endpoint as it does a beginning.

It began when the Holy Spirit indwelt the Apostles at Pentecost. It concludes when the ministry of the Holy Spirit is withdrawn, paving the way for the conclusion of the final Week of the Law.

The Apostle Paul reveals that during the final week of the Law, the Temple will be in full operation, and Paul goes a step further, legitimizing that Temple by referring to it as the “Temple of God.” (2nd Thessalonians 2:4)

But during the Dispensation of Grace, we learn that Church Age believers are the “Temple of God.”

“What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?” (1st Corinthians 6:19)

Since the Dispensations are separate, unique and do not overlap, the Dispensation of Grace must end before Daniel’s 70th Week can begin. The Final Week of the Law cannot take place concurrently with the Dispensation of Grace.

The ministry of the Holy Spirit cannot be withdrawn, signaling the conclusion of the Dispensation of Grace, and still indwell believers on the earth. If He still indwells believers, then His ministry has not been withdrawn.

If He is withdrawn FROM believers on the earth, then Jesus has broken His promise that the Comforter will indwell the Church until He comes for it.

There is only one theologically accurate and logically acceptable answer to this conundrum.

Believers are withdrawn at the Rapture with the Holy Spirit. And since the withdrawal of the Holy Spirit marks the end point of the Dispensation of Grace, that event must take place before the onset of the final week of the Dispensation of the Law.

It doesn’t matter how one approaches the subject, analyzing it logically, and following the Dispensational pattern so clearly outlined by Scripture, the only conclusion that fits is that the Rapture of the Church takes place at the beginning, and not the middle or end, of the final week of the Dispensation of the Law.

I don’t see how anyone could conclude otherwise. And I’ve tried.

“For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Wherefore comfort one another with these words.” (1st Thessalonians 4:15-18)

So keep looking up. He is coming!

The Petraeus Report

The Petraeus Report
Vol: 71 Issue: 18 Saturday, August 18, 2007

Congressional Democrats, fearing the worst, have already begun attacking General David Petraeus’ much-anticipated September 15 report.

So have their allies in the media. A Washington Post column on Thursday called the Petraeus report, “a White House con job in the making.”

The Los Angeles Times said this: “Despite Bush’s repeated statements that the report will reflect evaluations by Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, administration officials said it would actually be written by the White House, with inputs from officials throughout the government.”

The media is taking its cue from Nancy Pelosi, who issued a news release on Thursday saying “For a long time the Administration has hidden behind the name of General David Petraeus, saying the September report will be his. We all knew this would be the President’s report.”

Rahm Emanuel, the House Democratic Caucus chairman, joined in, condemning the as-yet unwritten report as, “a snapshot from the same people who told us the mission was accomplished and the insurgency was in its last throes. We’ve spent hundreds of billions of dollars and lost thousands of lives in Iraq. An honest report from our generals and diplomats about the status of the war isn’t too much to ask.”

The Democrats, as already noted, fear that General Petraeus’ report will suggest that US forces are winning in Iraq. So therefore, General Petraeus must be lying. Even before he says anything.

It is a matter of record that civilian attacks are at their lowest level in months, US combat deaths are down, terrorist strongholds are collapsing, key leaders are being turned in. If one supports the troops, and loves America, this is very good news indeed.

Let’s imagine what it would mean to America to have a friendly regime in Baghdad — a genuinely friendly regime, such as we have in the Kurdish north. We’d have — dare I say it? — a steady supply of foreign oil.

We’d have a buffer zone between Iran and Israel. Iran would be sandwiched and contained between two US allies; Iraq and Afghanistan. We’d have enormous opportunities for trade and commerce. A stable, secure alliance with a stable and secure Iraq could possibly infect the entire region with stability and security.

We could rebuild a friendly and stable Iraq and make its economy the envy of the Middle East. The biggest US economic boom period of the 20th century came as a result of rebuilding post-war Europe, and establishing strong, friendly market economies in Germany and Japan.

That is what a positive report from General Petraeus could portend.

Even the most leftist liberal who chanted “No blood for oil” five years ago has to admit that it was a lot cheaper to drive to that demonstration than it is right now. A friendly and stable Iraq would mean an affordable and stable price at the gas pump at home.

So, any news that suggests progress towards such a utopian dream as a stable, friendly government in Iraq is very, very good news for America.

And very, very bad news for Nancy Pelosi and her Congressional allies.


Pelosi must expect the Petraeus report to be really good news. Not only is she attacking the messenger, General Petraeus, as a White House shill, she’s already begun the process of changing the question his report was commissioned to answer.

General Petraeus was tasked with deploying the troop surge in combat operations with terrorists in Iraq and reporting back to Congress on the impact the troop surge had on his overall operational effectiveness.

Pelosi’s tactics remind me of those employed by the late and unlamented Yasser Arafat. Pelosi and her allies calculated that, if the troop surge failed, then their declarations of military defeat would translate into political victory in ’08.

They never expected it to succeed, and actively did what they could to impede it. Nevertheless, it appears to have had a positive impact, putting them in the awkward position of advocating surrender to a fleeing enemy.

The only options remaining are to confuse the issue, expand the question, attack the messenger, and create a new obstacle:

“We must remember that the purpose of the surge was to create a secure environment in which political change could occur. Whether or not some limited military success has occurred, it is clear that the Iraqi leaders have failed to make political progress,” Pelosi said on Thursday in her preemptive strike against a positive military assessment.

“The question for September is: ‘Why should our troops risk their lives in a civil war when the Iraqi government refuses to take the political steps necessary to end the sectarian violence?’ We must have a candid assessment of the ongoing situation in Iraq and it is increasingly unclear whether the September report will provide that.”

(The “question for September” was supposed to be “is the surge working?” But since it evidently is, Pelosi apparently believes we need a new question.)

You know, we don’t hear a lot of bad news coming out of the Kurdish region of Iraq. The ordinary Kurds embraced America, and worked with US forces to rout the terrorists in their midst out. There are few places in Kurdish Iraq where terrorists can hide without somebody turning them in.

Kurdish markets are open, the Kurdish economy is booming and terrorist attacks are relatively rare. Why? Not because of the Kurdish government. But because of the ordinary Kurdish citizen who won’t tolerate a terrorist safe house in his neighborhood.

The key to winning Iraq isn’t winning its government. It is in winning its people, who will then form a government that reflects their will. Give them a chance to live in security, and they will do what the Kurds did and run the terrorists out of town. And THAT is what General Petraeus was tasked to do.

Let’s look back again at what is at stake in Iraq. We’ve looked at the utopian possibilities for America, should we run al-Qaeda out of Iraq.

Now let’s look at the flip side; Pelosi and Company are successful in forcing an early withdrawal.

Iraq is carved up, with Iran and the terrorists taking over the center, the Sunnis seeking alliances with the Saudis, and a Turkish invasion of the Kurdish North.

Ethnic cleansing claims tens of thousands of lives, millions become homeless refugees, and a new stateless people with a list of legitimate grievances against the United States is born.

Constant internecine regional terrorism disrupts the supply of oil, the price triples, bringing on inflation, recession and unemployment.

But for Nancy Pelosi and her allies, it means victory in ’08. And that is all that really matters to them.

It’s stomach-turning.

The Bush Doctrine and Iran

The Bush Doctrine and Iran
Vol: 71 Issue: 17 Friday, August 17, 2007

The Bush administration announced this week that it was planning to designate Iran’s Revolutionary Guard as a global terror organization. The move is unprecedented; the Revolutionary Guard is a legitimate branch of Iran’s military forces.

The Iranian Revolutionary Guard is a separate military branch, believed to be about 125,000 strong, with its own air and naval capabilities. It is also a coercive commercial venture, exploiting its privileged status to operate many businesses of its own and as majority shareholders in others.

The Guard uses its profits to supply the Shiia militias in Iraq, the Taliban holdouts in Afghanistan and the anti-Israeli Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. The explosively formed penetrators turning up in IEDs used against US forces in Iraq are of Iranian origin and manufacture.

Global terrorist organization designations are usually reserved for stateless Islamic terror organizations like Hamas, Hezbollah or al-Qaeda. Putting a nation’s military force on the list is a whole ‘nuther ballgame.

Designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a global terrorist organization is tantamount to an official declaration of Iran’s government as a global terror organization.

Of course, Iran’s own government has all but boasted of its ties to terrorism.

Ahmadinejad has issued what can only be described as terroristic threats against Israel. And against the West. Ahmadinejad has boasted of having planted Iranian terror cells throughout the United States.

In reaction to the news the Guard was about to be designated as a terrorist organization, a senior Iranian mullah, Ahmad Khatami said in a live speech broadcast on Iranian radio:

“Americans should know that in this field, as with nuclear energy, they are dealing with the whole nation. And the great nation of Iran will never abandon its revolutionary people. . . Americans should know that if they act madly in this regard, they would be entering a swamp they won’t be able to get out of . . .”

Only someone sympathetic to Osama bin-Laden would doubt Iran’s government is a global terrorist organization. But in the diplomatic world, knowing something and saying something are two entirely different propositions.

Once it gets said out loud, it changes everything.


This is the first time that the United States has added the armed forces of any sovereign government to its list of terrorist organizations.

An official US designation of a branch of the Iranian military as a global terrorist organization gives the United States a better case for war against Iran than it would have had for war against Saddam’s Iraq, even if the pre-war evidence against Saddam had all been 100% true.

US Presidential ‘Doctrines’ define key goals, attitudes or stances for US foreign affairs and the military projection of power as outlined by particular presidential administrations. They have no time-stamp.

The 1823 Monroe Doctrine set forth US policy regarding Europe that stood, with only a minor modification by President Theodore Roosevelt, until the 1st World War.

The US followed the Truman Doctrine defining the Cold War from its enunciation on March 12, 1947 until the collapse of the Soviet Union on December 25, 1991.

The Eisenhower Doctrine declared the Middle East an area of strategic US military interest in 1957 and laid out the conditions under which the US would intervene militarily in regional conflicts. It stands to this day.

The Bush Doctrine is the set of foreign policies adopted by the President of the United States George W. Bush in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks.

In an address to the United States Congress after the attacks, President Bush stated that the U.S. would “make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.”

The Bush Doctrine has come to be identified with a policy that permits preventive war against potential aggressors before they are capable of mounting attacks against the United States.

The Bush Doctrine was the justification for the invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq. In both cases, the US officially first designated them as state sponsors of terror, then destroyed them.

Under the Bush Doctrine, designating Iran’s Revolutionary Guard as a global terrorist organization makes its sponsor, Tehran, a legitimate target of war.

It grows increasingly clear that the United States cannot ignore Iran, and it is equally clear that Ahmadinejad intends to push the confrontation to the brink.

Ahmadinejad has not abandoned his belief that his religious duty is to begin a global war between the forces of Islam and the Dar al Harb, which he believes will hasten the return of the Islamic Mahdi.

On the other hand, Iran has perhaps two dozen nuclear facilities hidden away in various places, all working feverishly towards Iran’s goal of obtaining nuclear weapons. There is no way the United States can allow a designated terrorist state to possess nuclear weapons.

Editorial pages across the world are describing the plan as a ‘foreign policy blunder’. They argue that the designation of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a global terrorist organization is the first step on the road to war with Tehran.

Whether or not it is a ‘blunder’ depends on what the foreign policy goal is. If the goal is to get Iran to give up its nukes through negotiation, then it might be.

But if the White House has concluded that goal is unattainable, then the only alternative is war before Tehran goes nuclear.

If that is the conclusion that’s been reached, then it’s not a ‘blunder’ at all.

The Doctrine of Demons

The Doctrine of Demons
Vol: 71 Issue: 16 Thursday, August 16, 2007

A Roman Catholic bishop in the Netherlands made headlines this week when he issued a statement urging Catholics to refer to God as “Allah.”

Martinus Tiny Muskens, the bishop of Breda, argues that there is no difference between God and Allah, and anyway, God doesn’t mind what you call Him. According to Muskens, “the Almighty is above such discussion and bickering.”

He says the Netherlands should look to Indonesia, where the Christian churches already pray to Allah. It is also common in the Arab world, where he said that Christian and Muslim Arabs use the words God and Allah interchangeably.

“Someone like me has prayed to Allah yang maha kuasa (Almighty God) for eight years in Indonesia and other priests for 20 or 30 years,” Muskens said. “In the heart of the Eucharist, God is called Allah over there, so why can’t we start doing that together?”

According to Bishop Muskens, “Allah is a very beautiful word for God. Shouldn’t we all say that from now on we will name God Allah? … What does God care what we call Him? It is our problem,” Muskens told Dutch television.

Bishop Muskens is not without allies in his quest to rename God: Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations backs the idea as a way to ‘help interfaith understanding’ — or something.

“It reinforces the fact that Muslims, Christians and Jews all worship the same God,” Hooper told “I don’t think the name is as important as the belief in God and following God’s moral principles. I think that’s true for all faiths.”

Christians who are Arabic speakers speak of Allah when they speak of God, Hooper added.

“There’s not a theological leap to make on the part of Christians,” Hooper said.

The Council of Islamic Organizations of Greater Chicago supports the idea.

I think it will open up doors, said Janaan Hashim, a spokeswoman for the group representing more than 400,000 Muslim Americans in the Chicago area. Language is a man-made limitation. I think what God cares about is how we fulfill our purpose in life.


If I saw a column that I had written published verbatim under somebody else’s name, should I care? Why?

It is my work. Because it is my work, the product of both my labor and my personality, and because it is unique to me, it should bear my byline and not someone else’s. It isn’t pettiness or self-aggrandizement to expect my work to bear my name.

My work is a reflection of me, not a reflection of someone else. If someone else puts their name on it, they are stealing a part of me.

There are even laws to prevent such theft, and there is a name for the person who tries to pass of my work as his own — plagiarist. We human beings think that taking credit for somebody else’s work is not just rude, it is a crime.

God is even less patient with plagiarism than I am. The universe is His work, and the God of the Bible is disinclined let somebody else take credit for it.

“. . . for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me.” (Exodus 20:2)

“Look unto Me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.” (Isaiah 45:22)

“Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like Me.” (Isaiah 46:9)

Is Allah another name for the God of the Bible? The word “Allah” means ‘the god’ — it is not a proper name. Prior to Mohammed, Allah was but one of 360 pagan deities worshipped by pagan Arab culture.

Christians worship one God in three persons: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

But Islam denies the Holy Trinity and worships a different deity called Allah who is not a Father and who has no son. Since the religion found in the Bible teaches the Trinity, then it does not take a Ph.D. to see that Islam did not come from the Bible.

These facts of history reveal that Islam does not worship the same God worshipped by Christians. Islam is not the religion of the biblical prophets, apostles or Jesus. So Allah cannot be the same God.

Why is it so important to the Council on Islamic-American Relations that Allah be elevated to the position of Jehovah God? Why is it so important to Islam that Christians recognize Allah as the God of Scripture?

Think it through. Christians aren’t seeking to claim Allah as their God, (except maybe for nutbars like Bishop Muskens. Jews aren’t claiming Allah as the God they worship. Both Christians and Jews recognize Allah as a different deity than the Deity revealed to them by Scripture.

On the other hand, it is very, very important to Muslims that both Christians and Jews accept Allah as the same God Who inspired the Scriptures. Why? The answer is simple.

Being worshipped as God is Satan’s number one objective to the exclusion of all else. Everything Scripture reveals about Satan exposes his agenda.

He tempted Jesus in the wilderness, demanding that Jesus bow down and worship him. Paul says he will sit, “as God, in the Temple of God” during the Tribulation. John says he will demand worship as a condition of participating in his economic/religious system.

Notice this very important spiritual clue: it isn’t God that wants to be worshipped as Allah, but Allah who wants to be worshipped as God.

It is both a distinction and a difference.

Christians and Jews worship a Living God. As a Living entity, God cannot be “reinvented” to suit somebody else, since He already is Who He is. God doesn’t need to claim to be someone else to confirm His legitimacy.

Allah evidently does, however. If Allah were a living entity, then Islam wouldn’t try to remake him as someone he is not. Allah cannot be the God of Scripture unless the God of Scripture suffered a bout of schizophrenia in the sixth century.

CAIR’s Hooper outlined the difference between Allah and God in his comment; “I don’t think the name is as important as the belief in God and following God’s moral principles. I think that’s true for all faiths.” The unimportance of the name of a deity might be true for MOST faiths, but not ALL faiths.

“Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other Name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12)

Watch for an increased effort within organized Christianity to rehabilitate Allah as another name for God . . . something bigger than just some obscure Catholic bishop in some obscure part of the Netherlands.

Its all part of the Big Picture for the last days.

“Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron.” (1st Timothy 4:1-2)

In his second letter to the Church at Thessolonika, the Apostle Paul sought to rebut a heresy that was being circulated among the Thessalonians that the Rapture had happened and that they had been left behind to face the antichrist.

“Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto Him, [the Rapture] That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ [the Tribulation] is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, [seducing spirits, doctrines of demons] and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition.” (2nd Thessalonians 2:1-3)

That ‘falling away’, [Greek apostasia] ties in with the doctrines assigned by the Apostle Paul to the False Prophet of Revelation 13:11, “two horns like a lamb, but he spake as a dragon.” The “lamb” symbolizes a kind of Christianity, and its doctrine is the doctrine of the dragon, [Satan].

The doctrine of Satan is that all religions are equally valid, that all paths lead to God, that God is impersonal, unknowable, and it is therefore irrelevant to Him what we call Him or how we worship Him.

The purpose of Scripture is to reveal Who God is, how to worship Him and what to call Him.

The Scriptures were given to keep us from being persuaded by the doctrine of demons that there is another Gospel, one more inclusive of other faiths, one that reduces God the Father from a personal, loving God, to “The Man Upstairs,” a nameless, emotionless entity that we can remake to suit our tastes.

If Allah and God are one and the same, then wouldn’t the worship of the Hindu chief gods, Vishnu and Shiva, also be the worship Allah and God, only by a different name? What about the Kami of Japanese Shintoism?

If one accepts the principle that Allah is another name for God, then it is no great leap to extend that recognition to Vishnu, Shiva, the Kami, the Great Spirit, Jupiter, Zeus, Dagon, or any other god. Which is precisely the idea.

It is Allah seeking legitimacy as God here, and not the other way around.

“And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.” (1st John 4:3)

Lies in hypocrisy, seducing spirits, Catholic bishops espousing what is literally and Biblically a doctrine of demons — a doctrine declared by Scripture to be spawned by the ‘spirit of antichrist’ . . . can it get any clearer?

Tick . . . tick . . . tick . . .