Wednesday, 10 December 2014

The tragedy of Mars Hill

When I first became a Christian in '11, One of the first places I went to (online) was Mars Hill Church.

Essentially my first pastoral influence was Mark Driscoll. So to see this place fall to its knees due to potentially his mismanagement and abuse of staff is quite upsetting. I loved Mark's push for manliness, and his explanation's of doctrine. His church did not seem dry, but seemed relevant to me. Of course this is me just getting saved, naive, looking for someone to speak to my needs. Here in the UK our churches are very much liberal and effeminate, I dislike this, and the only IFB churches are zionist and McCarthur influenced. So I look to online ministries to supplement or to supersede bad preaching.

Mark Driscoll gave me some idea of what to look for in a church back when I had no real idea of what was good or bad. His preaching could reduce me to tears, and it was only when my theology changed (as it has a good few times) and grew that I realised it was ESV, Calvinist and emergent, and had to move on.

But those months of Driscoll's preaching really made a difference to me, they gave me a foundation and faith, and whilst I would disagree with pretty much all of his preaching nowadays, without that church and that man's preaching I wouldn't have had the philosophy and drive that I do now which allows me to disagree, which causes me to seek out knowledge.

So despite all the scandal, I can happily say that I'm glad Mars Hill existed, and I hope that these poor churches left without central management, can perhaps all change, evolve and grow with good preachers, an actual decent bible, good theology, and a leadership that stands for truth, justice and righteousness.

Mark was once and example of who to become, now let him be an example of who to avoid becoming,

Wednesday, 12 November 2014

Why do people go to hell?

I have been watching on US netflix a documentary called Hellbound?

Basically its pro-universalism. But it seems to not accurately bring across the doctrine of eternal torment. But then again, it fails to explain WHY hell exists. It seems to think that it's due to bad behaviour, but never puts across salvation. It keeps talking about God's grace etc, but never posits what salvation is, and as such seems to think that everyone is a christian who is going to heaven, but that we who believe in hell think everyone is a christian who is either going to heaven or hell on God's whim.

Here is my explanation of hell.

In the beginning God had a plan of who he was going to make, everyone from beginning to end was written down and planned. They had free will, and could choose salvation or damnation. God saw that through Adam's sin that ALL would go to hell, everyone from Adam to the last person born would burn in hell.

So God made Israel, he selected a people to be his light unto the world and provided them with a law of action - at such a time that his nation was one of the big players. Humble yet vocal, through Israel God brough forth Kings and Prophets to preach and reflect His mercy and Grace, This led to epistles, prophecies, proverbs and psalms. Some failed and some succeeded.

Israel ultimately failed in its mission, but did just enough to ensure that God's work was done.

Eventually, Jesus came onto the scene and sealed the deal, his famous sermon on the mount established what Christian behaviour should be, and through his death and resurrection paved a way for eternal life, forgiveness of sins, and adoption into God's family.

Those who believe on Jesus are saved, and adopted into God's family, are ultimately children of God, and cannot lose their salvation - conversely those who do not believe are condemned for their sins, and are children of Satan.

One goes to a new Heaven and a new Earth to live with God, the other goes to Hell, to suffer with their father - the devil.

Now God knew what would happen, he knew who would be saved (i.e. who would believe) and he knew who would would choose not to believe. But in order to draw all men unto him, he had to create both wheat and tares..why? Put simply, God does not 'make' you believe, he simply gives you the opportunity to through the sharing of the gospel, but God knew on day 1 if you would believe or not. But God forces no one to believe or disbelieve. You either accept or reject the offer.

The universalists seem to bring this down to God's love, and assume that both the saved and unsaved are unwilling pawns in God's evil game. In fact in this documentary one interviewee even asserted that God had made both good and evil. They reduce the issue down to God being a puppeteer, and uses Westboro as an example of the fundamentalist, when they're a law unto themselves and do not represent real fundamentalism. God does not make people go to hell, they make themselves go to hell. God also gives everyone the opportunity to go to heaven, but he expends his resources where he knows people will believe, but there are cultures out there where God's judgment has come down. But, if he knows someone will believe and be saved, he will expend his resources to ensure that person's salvation. There is not one person in hell today who would have believed in God when they were alive, all are people who reject God and always would have.

On the cross Jesus drew all unto him, it says it right there in the bible, some came, and some walked away. Thats why people go to hell. It's not simply because of sin, as sin is dealt with on the cross, It's because they reject God that they burn, and thus the weight of their sins drags them to hell. Christians can sin day in day out and they will still go to heaven. I always pondered this you see, why would 'temporal sin' lead to 'eternal punishment'? Well, it doesn't, rejection of God's grace and the embrace of Satan does. You see, you're either with God, or you're with the devil.

That my friends is why people go to hell.

Wednesday, 20 August 2014

Islam - statistics

Found this interesting post on Godlikeproductions

It's not neccesarily and only Muslim 'leaders' but all Muslims benefit.

You have to realize Sharia law, is based off the Quran and Hadiths. And this is what the majority of Muslims believe and want. Islam is not a religion nor is it a cult. It is a complete system.

Islam has religious, legal, political, economic and military components.

The religious component is a beard for all the other components.

Islamization occurs when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their so-called 'religious rights.'

When politically correct and culturally diverse societies agree to 'the reasonable' Muslim demands for their 'religious rights,' they also get the other components under the table. Here's how it works (percentages source CIA: The World Fact Book (2007)).

As long as the Muslim population remains around 1% of any given country they will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone. In fact, they may be featured in articles and films, stereotyped for their colorful uniqueness:

United States -- Muslim 1.0%

Australia -- Muslim 1.5%

Canada -- Muslim 1.9%

China -- Muslim 1%-2%

Italy -- Muslim 1.5%

Norway -- Muslim 1.8%

At 2% and 3% they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs:

Denmark -- Muslim 2%

Germany -- Muslim 3.7%

United Kingdom -- Muslim 2.7%

Spain -- Muslim 4%

Thailand -- Muslim 4.6%

From 5% on they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population.

They will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will

increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves - - along with threats for failure to comply. (United States).

France -- Muslim 8%

Philippines -- Muslim 5%

Sweden -- Muslim 5%

Switzerland -- Muslim 4.3%

The Netherlands -- Muslim 5.5%

Trinidad &Tobago -- Muslim 5.8%

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islam is not to convert the world but to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions (Paris -- car-burnings).

Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats (Amsterdam -- Mohammed cartoons).

Guyana -- Muslim 10%

India -- Muslim 13.4%

Israel -- Muslim 16%

Kenya -- Muslim 10%

Russia -- Muslim 10-15%

After reaching 20% expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings and church and synagogue burning:

Ethiopia -- Muslim 32.8%

At 40% you will find widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks and ongoing militia warfare:

Bosnia -- Muslim 40%

Chad -- Muslim 53.1%

Lebanon -- Muslim 59.7%

From 60% you may expect unfettered persecution of non-believers and other religions, sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels:

Albania -- Muslim 70%

Malaysia -- Muslim 60.4%

Qatar -- Muslim 77.5%

Sudan -- Muslim 70%

After 80% expect State run ethnic cleansing and genocide:

Bangladesh -- Muslim 83%

Egypt -- Muslim 90%

Gaza -- Muslim 98.7%

Indonesia -- Muslim 86.1%

Iran -- Muslim 98%

Iraq -- Muslim 97%

Jordan -- Muslim 92%

Morocco -- Muslim 98.7%

Pakistan -- Muslim 97%

Palestine -- Muslim 99%

Syria -- Muslim 90%

Tajikistan -- Muslim 90%

Turkey -- Muslim 99.8%

United Arab Emirates -- Muslim 96%

100% will usher in the peace of 'Dar-es-Salaam' -- the Islamic House of Peace -- there's supposed to be peace because everybody is a Muslim:

Afghanistan -- Muslim 100%

Saudi Arabia -- Muslim 100%

Somalia -- Muslim 100%

Yemen -- Muslim 99.9%

Of course, that's not the case. To satisfy their blood lust, Muslims then start killing each other for a variety of reasons.

The Islamic New World Order

With all the talk recently of IS/ISIS (notice ISIS - the Egyptian Goddess - all paths lead to lucifer and his all seeing eye) It would seem that Islam is being exposed for the disgusting vile religion that it is.

But no, instead what he have today is Imams decrying the murder of an American journalist, and the most urgent news being that a guy on a video tape is BRITISH! What is going on? Thousands of Christians are dying at the hands of IS, Children are rumoured to have been cut in half, and others buried alive along with their mothers. Yet it's completely escaping broadcast news. Why? Why are we being lied to about Islam? Why are we consistently told that at it's purest - at it's core - Islam is peaceful?

Is it because Islam is in fact going to be the boot that grinds our faces into the dirt?

I may be wrong, but when one looks literally at the bible, and we think about the numbers of muslims entering western nations monthly. We could easily surmise that somewhere, someone is trying to fundamentally alter the fabric of our so-called 'Christian' west.

Firstly let us think about what the Bible says in Revelation:

referring to the antichrist (Rev 13):

""Who is like the beast, and who is able to wage war with him?"

"There was given to him a mouth speaking arrogant words and blasphemies, and authority to act for forty-two months was given to him. And he opened his mouth in blasphemies against God, to blaspheme His name and His tabernacle, that is, those who dwell in heaven." 13:5-6

"And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations. And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." 13:7-8

"they worshipped the beast"

The Beast, a great leader who rises up, that the whole world worships - just happens to kill Christians, and Jews (Matt 24) - yet no mention of Islam? Some may say that this is because Islam didn't exist yet. But I think something more, I think that those arrogant words and blasphemies, may actually represent the words of Islam (GOD HAS NO SON, MARY IS AN ADULTERESS), Also something intriguing is that the AntiChrist will have his throne in Jerusalem - not Mecca. In fact, Jerusalem shouldn't really be important in Islam - yet the Muslims hold the Temple Mount as the third most holy site in all of Islam. Right now they have a big hunking mosque where the Temple used to be, and unless Israel wants to be annihilated that temple would stay. What could change this situation?

Why, the arrival of the messiah perhaps - or/and the Imam Mahdi? Imagine, the two religions united under one leader! Pope Francis declares him to be Jesus returned - there's Catholicism covered!

All religion is based on belief, belief that works will save you, belief in prayer to saints being fruitful, belief that Jesus enters a wafer, belief that God has no son, belief that God does have a son and so forth. When Jesus walked the Earth multitudes believed upon him, and people today (believe it or not) are no different. If someone walked the Earth healing the sick, bringing fire down from heaven, teaching doctrines to unite both Islam and Judaism - they will believe him!

"And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years." Rev 20:4

Notice the KJV uses the term "beheaded" for "the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God". Only one religion beheads unbelievers, only one religion has verses to back up beheading people

Quran 8:12 - "[Remember] when Allah inspired to the angels, "I am with you, so strengthen those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike [them] upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip."

If one religion strikes terror its Islam. If one religion could so easily convert a generation it's Islam. People who claim that Christianity is oppressive, ought to try Islam. No bikini clad hotties, no swearing, no smoking, no drinking, no xbox, no choice in who to marry, no erring from the faith, Christianity in it's purest form is LOVE, Islam in it's purest form is SUBMISSION. Islam does not have the same God as Christianity - remember Jesus is GOD, Jesus is the only way to heaven. In Islam it's Allah, and it's never sure-fire. You have to keep all these feast days, and fasts, and holy days, and if you don't just have to hope that Allah is merciful when you die. In Christianity you have the Holy Spirit to tell you you're saved the -"comforter" - the seal of our redemption. We know that once we have believed on Jesus, nothing can seperate us from God, he loves us and saves us and that's it. Now with Islam it's a different story, it's not about belief, it's about keeping his rules, it's about submitting to him - Allahship salvation.

Islam is far more like Judaism and Catholicism than Christianity. Hence the constant propaganda that "we have the same god"

The three religions will unite, along with the smaller works based religions, and Christianity - true Christianity - will be left to defend itself spiritually and physically from the onslaught. The AntiChrist will choose Jerusalem as it is the centre of the Earth, it's the seat where Jesus will sit in the millennial kingdom, and its the unifying centre of the three big religions.

It will be predominately muslim, but will accommodate other aspects of the other two, The pope will be a 'king' as will the chief Rabbi of Judaism, all under the Imam Mahdi/Messiah.

This is supposition, but it's very very scary for all Christians. When we hear of what ISIS has been doing, we should all be aware that we all have that to look forward to one day. Be prepared.

Tuesday, 10 June 2014

Why Linux Mint going LTS is a great thing!

Linux Mint is one of the biggest distros out there. So big in fact that it is seemingly the new Ubuntu as the go-to distro for new users. In fact I used to use Linux Mint back in the days when its theme was black and green. Linux Mint 7 still remains as my favourite, I will never forget installing that on my computer, and everything just seemed to work. It was a sad day when support ended for it.

The big problem with many ubuntu-based distributions is the 6 month release cycle. It means that developers have to keep making new releases or they're going to get out of date fast, but it also means that devs can't pool there efforts and talents into one main release. It now seems obvious that that is the reason they release LMDE. But with less people using it it kind of defeated the object - obviously this was an unexpected result. Fewer but loud voices calling for such a distro.

In my opinion, the best move they could have made is to become an LTS release - short of making LMDE their primary release. Its a toss up of two bests, Newer packages and a debian style two year release cycle. What this means is more quality testing, the ability to backport newer software, and the opportunity to not rush anything. Ergo more opportunity to work on Cinnamon and MATE, its a fantastic concept.

LTS is known to be more stable, it has better security support, better kernels, often the best software, and that longer release cycle really makes a difference. In the end Mint is really going to benefit from this funnelling of energy. Six months just isn't a long time. It will also allow them to benefit more from ubuntu's offerings. For instance support tends to end quickly on a non-LTS release, if memory serves after 6 months we're doing to security updates but no package updates. Yet on an LTS its two years package updates and 5 years of security updates.

This is also going to allow for more stability for users. No longer will Mint users have to keep wiping and re-installing. Its hard work for them, and their hard-drives. Of course this is going to weed out the OCD weirdos who love to wipe their hard drives! But for us normal folk this turn-around is great news.

Although I use arch, if arch suddenly disappeared from the universe by some cataclysmic event. I would happily use a Mint LTS version. Ubuntu may suck, but Mint's high quality development team, they tend to make things just that much better.

Webupd8 article here

Tuesday, 11 March 2014

The Truth about Hell


In my 3 year walk as a christian one of the biggest problems I've faced is dealing with the doctrine of hell. Above all others this has been my biggest difficulty. Theres lots on the internet claiming to be the of soul sleep and conditional immortality. Some of which I once believed, but no longer do. I decided thanks to some questions to do my best to answer this long held hell torment, or death, eternal in quality, or eternal in quantity.

Firstly, many of the issues we have come from modern 'bibles', as I don't use them anymore, the blog posts I've written in the past, and my beliefs are null and void. Where the King James says Hell, thats hell, so none of this sheol, hades, gehenna nonsense. They're one and the same thing. sheol describes Hades in the OT, Hades describes Gehenna, Gehenna is the post millennial hell, its the lake of fire. But its all Hell. From the moment you die, you're in hell, when you enter judgment and are cast into the lake of're in hell. When you enter outer darkness in the new creation, you're in hell.

One doctrine of devils that has had its way in today's society with great ease it that of the doctrine that says there is a Hell that lasts for all of eternity and those residing do so in screams of torment."

well yes because the bible says: "The sorrows of death compassed me, and the pains of hell gat hold upon me: I found trouble and sorrow. Then called I upon the name of the LORD; O LORD, I beseech thee, deliver my soul." Psalm 116:3-4

"Do they believe a God that would send His one and only Son to die a torturous and humiliating death would create a place that would be used for TORTURE for ALL eternity? Does the character of God come off as a tyrant who enjoys hearing the screams of people who have decided not to worship Him? Would this sound like a way to "glorify" Him as a loving and giving Father? Or does this sound like a way to de-glorify Him as a mean and unmerciful tyrant?"

Yes, I believe God would send his only begotten die the death of a sinner..seems reasonable to me that the sinner would endure the same judgment as Jesus, the difference is Jesus was raised again, he went to hell did he not? Yes the character of God comes off as a tyrant, who kills and destroys his enemies, God is Lord, Judge, Executioner.

"Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God." Mk 1:24

"And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name." Rev 14:11

Theres a simple fact, that those who believe in the conditional immortality/soul sleep doctrine stumble at any bible produced before 1881. These bibles were produced to suit a new 'liberal' concept of christianity, not a life ruling, life defining christianity that makes men tremble at God, but an evolution nodding, ecumenical christianity that yielded to science and didn't know itself truly..but is more a reed shaken by the wind. Hell is defined throughout the old and new testaments.

Now if Hell wasn't defined by the Old Testament..why would Jesus say in Matt 23:33 "
Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?"

If I was a Pharisee, and someone said this and I had no idea what hell was..i'd say..what is hell? what on earth are you talking about? don't you mean sheol? where the souls rest? yet instead..nothing is said, Jesus continues to rail on them, then off he goes. Every modern bible fails in consistency, every child who reads it will have no idea what this sheol, hell, gehenna stuff is..and so men shall define it for them. God is not the author of confusion, yet these bible critics continue to make him seem so.

"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." 2 Peter 3:9

This has nothing to do with hell, yet it is used to make it seem like God won't punish the wrong-doer.."Does this verse describe a God that WANTS to put you in hell?" Well, no, but it doesn't mean he won't. Men become reprobate, they deny God, they taunt and mock him, and eventually God says..fine..(Romans 1)..enjoy sin and reap your reward. God will send you to hell if you ignore his will for long enough, He gives plenty of warning!

Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: James 1:13"
Great dishonesty from the website here. Because the truth is the verse continues, its taken out of context, just because God doesn't tempt doesn't mean a man isn't tempted

" Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death." James 1:13-15
Sin bringeth forth death..and death bringeth forth either heaven or hell.

No, the Lord God Almighty cannot be tempted of evil and He would not SEND you evil. The Almighty and ever living Creator did NOT create you to burn. He WANTS you to live!"

Well, God made you to live for eternity, but you sinned, and you didn't believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, so you're going to hell. You're unsaved. The punishment doesn't matter, you're still going to be punished.

2Peter 3:10
But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up."

"He warns us because He loves us. He does NOT want us to burn and die and be permanently separated from the Father who created us. Why? We will NOT be with Him for eternity. And THAT is what He wants for you and me. Such a love!"

But does that negate that it will happen? Parents don't want to spank their children yet they do, God chastises his children, and executes judgment on his enemies. Yes, the unsaved are ENEMIES of God.

The Almighty is NOT the one putting anyone in hell. It is the devil and his angels that confuse the world into CHOOSING hell over Heaven."

That is a complete lie!

"And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,
The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name."
Rev 14:9-11

Jesus has the keys to death and to hell (rev 1:18), and he gives those keys to his angel Abaddon in Revelation 9:1-11..

Rev 1:18 "
I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death."

"And death is ETERNAL SEPARATION from God and all that is salvation and happiness. Notice the following verses... Remembering all the while, that this is NOT God's will for you or me or anyone to burn in hell."
Where is this? The bible says: "
If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there." Psalm 139:8

" Ezekiel 18:32, "For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye."
John 3:36, "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him."
If God has no pleasure in the death of him that dieth..yet people that not the same as God not enjoying the eternal torment of the wicked..yet it happens anyway? Notice it says shall not see life (eternal life) but THE WRATH OF GOD ABIDETH (abideth = liveth) ON HIM.

"Matthew 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: 

"EVERLASTING FIRE?" Some use this verse to proclaim the fire will last forever and ever and ever and ever... But look at these verses using the same word "everlasting" 

Fire that burns forever..

2 Thessalonians 1:8,9
"In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; "

the glory of his power being eternal life..the reverse being everlasting destruction..well destruction denotes everlasting already..if something is destroyed it is gone is it not? a term would be annihilation..but to add everlasting in there indicates that the process is forever. the person is in a process of destruction that lasts eternity.

The result of the FIRE is and EVERLASTING DESTRUCTION. The wages of sin is DEATH not life eternal in hell fire! Life in hell fire would mean we have a mean and very angry God who enjoys the screams of billions of people for all eternity. This is the devil's plan to get you to believe this is the character of God. The devil NEEDS you to look at God in this way! 

God will not be "enjoying" the screams of billions of people. When the new creation begins, these people will be in outer darkness.

Matthew 25:46 
"And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal. "
Why not just say "and these shall die and never be resurrected, but the righteous shall live forever". Trusting that the KJV is in the inerrant, infallible word of God, we can be sure that these people will be punished forever.

The point of the hell debate is to simply ask God what the truth is, to read it in his word. A website will give an opinion, a belief, but the true Bible, the KJV will simply give you the truth. "Thy word is truth"

Tuesday, 4 February 2014

Matthew Henry is NOT an heretick

 Christian Baptism. (a. d. 66.)

21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:   22 Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.

Noah's salvation in the ark upon the water prefigured the salvation of all good Christians in the church by baptism; that temporal salvation by the ark was a type, the antitype whereunto is the eternal salvation of believers by baptism, to prevent mistakes about which the apostle,

I. Declares what he means by saving baptism; not the outward ceremony of washing with water, which, in itself, does no more than put away the filth of the flesh, but it is that baptism wherein there is a faithful answer or re-stipulation of a resolved good conscience, engaging to believe in, and be entirely devoted to, God, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, renouncing at the same time the flesh, the world, and the devil. The baptismal covenant, made and kept, will certainly save us. Washing is the visible sign; this is the thing signified.

II. The apostle shows that the efficacy of baptism to salvation depends not upon the work done, but upon the resurrection of Christ, which supposes his death, and is the foundation of our faith and hope, to which we are rendered conformable by dying to sin, and rising again to holiness and newness of life. Learn, 1. The sacrament of baptism, rightly received, is a means and a pledge of salvation. Baptism now saveth us. God is pleased to convey his blessings to us in and by his ordinances, Acts ii. 38; xxii. 16. 2. The external participation of baptism will save no man without an answerable good conscience and conversation. There must be the answer of a good conscience towards God.—Obj. Infants cannot make such an answer, and therefore ought not to be baptized.—Answer, the true circumcision was that of the heart and of the spirit (Rom. ii. 29), which children were no more capable of then than our infants are capable of making this answer now; yet they were allowed circumcision at eight days old. The infants of the Christian church therefore may be admitted to the ordinance with as much reason as the infants of the Jewish, unless they are barred from it by some express prohibition of Christ. [emphasis added]

-Matthew Henry

Okay, according to, Matthew Henry is a heretic. Apparently Henry promoted the idea of baptismal regeneration, i.e. that through baptism one is saved. Now its easy for us nowadays to say such things, but the problem is, the things that are quoted are surrounded by other things that prove he most certainly is not supporting that!

So now I'm going to explain what Henry was saying when he said such things.

For instance:

The baptismal covenant, made and kept, will certainly save us.
What is the baptismal covenant? That is the question to ask first. Well firstly, a covenant is an agreement, a 'testament' made and agreed to by two parties. What Henry is referring to is the New Testament, not anything to do with Baptism saving us, baptism is seen as the signifier, the example, the sign by which we say "I am saved", in fact thats what Henry says right after the underlining: "Washing is the visible sign; this is the thing signified.". SIGN.
Thus baptism signifies the covenant, That is why people get baptised today! That is why people got baptised in 30AD! To say "I turned to God".

The sacrament of baptism, rightly received, is a means and a pledge of salvation. Baptism now saveth us.
1. Firstly we need a definition of sacrament:

"A sacrament is a sacred Christian rite recognized as of particular importance and significance."

So here we are, its not, something that saves you, its just important and significant. Baptism is indeed, something that 'tells of' or indicates salvation, remember Matthew Henry was writing in the late 17th century, and he's using means in the sense of:

to serve or intend to convey, show, or indicate :  signify mean
s rain>"

Baptism means salvation. i.e. Baptism now "saveth" us. See here:

"The external participation of baptism will save no man without an answerable good conscience and conversation. There must be the answer of a good conscience towards God.—Obj. Infants cannot make such an answer, and therefore ought not to be baptized."
Again he shows that baptism does not save:

"You must be born again of the Spirit,’’ which regeneration by the Spirit should be signified by washing with water, as the visible sign of that spiritual grace: not that all they, and they only, that are baptized, are saved; but without that new birth which is wrought by the Spirit, and signified by baptism, none shall be looked upon as the protected privileged subjects of the kingdom of heaven.
To say that this teaches baptismal regeneration, shows Jesus-is-savior's rather deluded and ignorant understanding of the English Language. If you were to follow his logic, the bible is heretical as well:

Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." Romans 6:4

Buried with Christ in baptism?! Whattt?

"Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Acts 2:38

Be baptised for the remission of sins? Thats putting baptism farrr to near to salvation for my liking!

Is Matthew Henry saying anything different than the bible? If Matthew Henry was speaking in modern English, would he not be one of the pioneers of today's 'revival' of old time gospel preaching?

I like to read Matthew Henry, he's insightful, he's not the Bible, but he was certainly a very wise and intelligent man. Why deny that and call a man a heretick simply because you assume that he's wrong. Baptism is one of those difficult things to understand, you can view it in many different lights. But evidently the correct view is that it signifies salvation: the start of a new life. I'm a King James only christian, but theres no harm in reading a commentary, that may open up new ways of looking at scripture. It's like listening to preaching..a guy is essentially giving you a commentary on a passage of scripture. You accept whether or not its true based upon YOUR OWN knowledge of scripture, and YOUR OWN bible reading. When someone like JIS comes along as says "heretick, heretick", what he's saying is, I disagree with that man's opinions about this passage, therefore I am going to rather unintelligently come along and rail on a dead guy. It shows spiritual immaturity, and bible ignorance. If JIS had come along and just read Matthew Henry in that passage, he would see that the surrounding lines explain exactly what he means, he keeps saying "signifies", and "rightly received (i.e. as a born again christian)". Sure, our lack of understanding of 17th century english, which is lofty and alien to us, can hinder us in our understanding of what's being said. But if it bothers you so much, move on. Take baptismal regeneration as his view if you want (although his works are actually used by people arguing against it). But do you have to believe it just because you're reading it? No! Do you agree word for word with everything that your pastor says? I know I don't. But does that stop you from going to church?

Read if you want, don't if you don't, But Henry is not an heretick.

Wisdom: Proof Testing, a doctrine we all need!

"Thou hast proved mine heart; thou hast visited me in the night; thou hast tried me, and shalt find nothing; I am purposed that my mouth shall not transgress." Psalms 17:3

What we see here, is a fantastic example of the wisdom of God. Just like a scientist has a hypothesis and then tests to see whether such things are so, essentially God gives us a similar procedure, and seemingly uses such a procedure himself. Are we saved? God will prove you. Are we doing what God says? prove yourself by the word. The word prove, seemingly means to both test, and confirm the questions that we have. As the verse below shows.

"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." 1 Thess 5:21Here God shows us, that as he proves us, we must prove all things ourselves. This is divine wisdom! It refers to both secular and religious things, test other people, test their words against their actions. Test religion to see that it fits with God's word, and if it does not..flee from it! This exhortation is so massively encompassing that it proves the wisdom of God. Even God says "Come let us reason together", he's not a God of ignorance, but a God of knowledge, who has no qualms that he will be proven right no matter what the circumstances or the method of analysis.

"And Moses said unto the people, Fear not: for God is come to prove you, and that his fear may be before your faces, that ye sin not." Exodus 20:20

God has come to prove us! Is that not as evident today as it was back in the days of Moses? We have a multitude of bible versions, churches that are falling into sin like never before, and Pastors that don't stand by the word but by a famous preacher's commentary! This is why this post is here, to tell you simply and honestly that if we don't stand by the wisdom of God, we will fall too!
And thou shalt remember all the way which the Lord thy God led thee these forty years in the wilderness, to humble thee, and to prove thee, to know what was in thine heart, whether thou wouldest keep his commandments, or no." Deut 8:2
See how prove not only means to confirm but to test us, to 'try' us, tried by fire?
By such tests and trials, whether it be cancer, or financial failings, or by persecution, the truth of our hearts will be tested. God's analysis of us is far greater, and far more consuming than scientific analysis.

Follow God's wisdom, and we will be safe, spiritually as well as physically. It may sound crazy to say that when staying with God can lead to death. But imagine the stupidity of a man who will fornicate because of his foolishness, or even deny God, hate him and become a reprobate. God's proving exists in various trials and tribulations:

"And they were to prove Israel by them, to know whether they would hearken unto the commandments of the Lord, which he commanded their fathers by the hand of Moses." Judges 3:4
Just as the Queen of Sheba did the same to Solomon:

"And when the queen of Sheba heard of the fame of Solomon, she came to prove Solomon with hard questions at Jerusalem, with a very great company, and camels that bare spices, and gold in abundance, and precious stones: and when she was come to Solomon, she communed with him of all that was in her heart." 2Chronicles 9:1

Then we have the exhortations of Paul, which give us the right formula of wisdom, to prove ourselves, to prove what is good, and that by testing against the word, we saved, eternal children of God will know exactly how to live, and exactly how to act!

"And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God." Romans 12:2

"Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?" 2 Corinthians 13:5

"But let every man prove his own work, and then shall he have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another." Galatians 6:4

"And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless." 1 Timothy 3:10

Not only do we have the good testing of God every now and again, as he brings out the good in us, but we have that same formula handed to us, we call it the scientific method. Hypothesis -> Testing -> Conclusion.

Yep, thats where it came from! The scientific method comes from the bible.
Its a method we need day to day to see if we are doing a good job, saved forever, but always growing! God bless

Monday, 20 January 2014

Arch with KDE: an unexpected delight

My Desktop
I used to be all for minimalism. As you will have seen in my my previous posts, I love Awesome Window Manager. But theres something to be said for an all out Desktop Environment. I was getting annoyed with having to find solutions for everything, and things that worked out of the box on Windows were needing text editing and tweaks here and there with Awesome.

So I moved to MATE, I loved Gnome 2 and its supported on Arch Linux so I installed it. Things were going great. But I suppose I got a bit bored, as you do. So after some research I decided to try KDE, which had always worked great back in 06/07 with SimplyMepis 6, although in Mepis7 when KDE4 came out it was awful.

Boy has KDE matured. Everything works great (apart from bluedevil due to the bluez changes, its quite buggy) and I now think that those who say KDE is slow are full of it. KDE is as quick as any desktop environment including XFCE, that is assuming you use Arch. One of the great thing about Arch is the minimalism, and even if you install the full KDE like I did (using the Arch Ultimate Install script) its so quick it'll blow your socks off. KDE is great for windows refugees, it looks like windows. I will say that the win7 system is more 'integrated', and one of the disadvantages I've found with KDE, more so in the past, is how chaotic everything seems. It isn't as bad these days, but theres still hints of it, with desktop settings here, and application settings elsewhere, It always seems like you need to open the launcher and go on a quest, but I'll admit its a lot better than it used to be.

Its a good desktop for a newbie to linux, Its pretty self explanatory, and may be a little more familiar in the manjaro iteration, which I expect is where someone with less experience of linux would go (for the most up to date software + ease of use), Manjaro goes for the traditional desktop with icons, whilst Arch goes with the default plasma desktop folder, which I don't understand personally. I want a desktop, with desktop icons, although, I don't spend much time on the desktop.

KDE is utterly adjustable, I tried, and succeeded to some degree to make KDE look like a mac, now I have no photos of it, but I promise you that I tried it, and although it was hard work it looked quite nice, this is testament to the good work that the KDE developers do, the desktop panel nicely adjusts to whatever size you put it at, and there are a large variety of themes out there for you to mess around with. One annoying feature is that a window thats minimized has the font grayed on the panel, on some themes this can make it near impossible to see what programs you have closed, which is annoying more than anything else.

I like that alt + shift + f12 deactivates and activates the desktop effects, its really helpful with games, as the effects have a tendency to cause some games to stutter (wow especially), again, a thoughtful addition to the DE.

In conclusion, KDE is much better in my opinion than GNOME, MATE and Cinnamon, I won't count XFCE in there because of how minimal it is. KDE feels much different, and I don't feel like I'm using something on top of linux, I feel like I am using Linux, it does feel integrated, and professional, much more than in the past. It feels as though KDE IS the OS, and I don't feel like I have to download more desktop environments because KDE makes me feel fulfilled as a user. Sure, it has its problems, but they're so minor I'm quite happy to let the developers deal with them. An environment like MATE feels kind of dated to me now, whilst cinnamon feels like a collection of GNOME widgets. I can honestly understand what the developers are going for. As much as OSX is mac, and Windows is PC, KDE is Linux, they're trying to make a desktop environment that is so powerful that it becomes the OS itself, to give the user everything they need, and to now make it feel hodge podged together.

It works, and its streets ahead of any other DE. Well done developers. Although it'll never be the case, I think that its a saleable system. With Arch it makes it much more stable, and speedy.

The word is: polished


Sunday, 12 January 2014

Why Alex Jones and not Bill Cooper? Why did one die and the other live?


Why did Bill Cooper die and Alex Jones not? Back in 2000 the hottest thing in truth movement was Bill Clinton, George Bush, 'Usama' Bin Laden, and the war between Jones and Cooper, Bill was 'exposing' Alex as a fraud, a con man and a liar, and Alex was continuing just as he had before, selling his water filters and wind up torches and 'exposing' the NWO.

Bill was (as is evidenced by his recordings) an 'evidence only' kind of guy. He used bibliographies, he cited sources and there was no way this little upstart Alex Jones was going to claim Russia was nuking the US on New Years Eve and get away with it.
Without some kind of event, these two gentlemen were destined to become two sides of the same coin, Alex would grow as a 'truther' eventually becoming a Bill Cooperesque figure in his own right. Alex has in modern times become a citer of sources, setting up a news network, and promoting christian values and the King James Bible on his program. Bill has sadly, but inevitably faded into the background since his death, but in my opinion has had a greater influence on Alex than he would let on.

So why did Bill die and not Alex?

In my opinion Alex lived because of his errors, and his hyperactive delivery, and his lack of citation. Back in 2000 Alex was a scare jock, and by 2001 Bill was the King of Radio Truth. Had it continued, Bill would have been a George Washington figure, and Alex would have been 'two bit', with only a small fringe listening audience. Bill would undoubtably have grown and grown.

This is to say nothing about Alex's character, time was I would have taken a two dimensional view of Alex as a collaborator, but I don't think so any more, I think he was an unwitting aid to the elites in 2000, and its quite possible that his jump on it style was used and abused and he was set up, Alex has proven himself time and again, and his only detractors are the sort of folks who feel he has slighted them in some way. Theres no 'concrete' evidence that Jones is of the devil (lol). But there is evidence that his character rubs people up in the wrong way sometimes. He is a showman, and I think he does try to reign that in.

Bill, was a very stoic individual, he would read paragraphs of books, would quote documents, would literally provide a case, provide arguments to support what he believed, and often would overwhelm you so much with the evidence he provided that you HAD to believe him. Mystery Babylon for instance, I'm still convinced that that is the religion of the elites. Despite him being dead now for 12 years, the evidence is there and is undeniable.

This is why Bill had to die, there has to be a dialectic, even for secret plans like the NWO, Alex was a more safe option than Bill, With Alex's delivery and evidenceless style the NWO had more time to prepare, (and yes I think Alex will vanish at some point), now that Alex has matured, developed infowars/prisonplanet I think that we now are in an early Bill sort of situation, given time, he can become a threat, but now he's an exposer and I like it. The more he promotes christianity the better he will be, and with his network he can expose, deliver and make up for his earlier loss of integrity. I don't ever believe that he's actively, consciously been working on the side of the illuminati, but he may have unwittingly assisted them.

Such things happen, and Bill has left a big hole for people like Jones, myself and others to fill. But with the grace of God we can all do it. In 2001, Alex took on that role, he grew over the years, and NOW he's much more mature, slower and provides evidence for his claims. We now have a community that Bill would have dreamed of back in the day, and its thanks to Alex that we can claim the title TRUTH MOVEMENT, and its thanks to Bill that we have nearly 2000 recordings that can elaborate, and dig deeper into whats going on. Without Alex I wouldn't know the basics, without Bill I wouldn't have known that there is a totalitarian SOCIALIST world government on the way caused by adherents to the ancient mystery religons, who worship SATAN. But it is enough to know that there is a push for a nasty, evil world government by globalists. Alex is now brushing the surface of mystery babylon.

You see, the elites were not ready for someone to expose what they were exposing in 01, Bill would have led the movement that Alex will soon lead, 10 years earlier, they could have been overthrown, but these folks plan years ahead, and they knew what was coming.

Their puppet, OBAMA, and whoever is next!