The False Message

But false prophets also arose among the people,
just as there will also be false teachers among you,
who will secretly introduce destructive heresies,
even denying the Master who bought them,

bringing swift destruction upon themselves.
Many will follow their sensuality,
and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned;

and in their greed they will exploit you with false words;
their judgment from long ago is not idle,
and their destruction is not asleep. 2 Peter 2:1-3





......... Less is More .....


A very popular seeker friendly pastor stated; “As a pastor, I’ve watched churches adopt many contemporary styles in worship, programming, architecture, music and other elements. That’s okay as long as the biblical message is unchanged.”

The problem here is obvious to us all … the biblical message has changed. All of a sudden political correctness and tolerance trumps Biblical truth. And of course in the modernist or postmodernist worlds there is no absolute Biblical Truth. Jesus was not the supernaturally conceived Son of God who came to forgive man for his sinfulness; but rather a most loving good teacher.

God is not the Creator of the universe who came in the form of a man; but rather just another man who evolved to greatness. One basic idea of this emerging church is to speak to men in their language, and they have carried the blending of Biblical truths with men’s supposed wisdom ... to a unbiblical end. Men’s philosophies or fantasies are now presented as the Bible. For a clear example, let’s look at some verses from a much loved paraphrase that is often presented by pastors in our confused emergent church generation as God’s Word.


As we look at these passages from a most important section of God’s Word, I have placed the Message Bible alongside the New King James Version. I want to make it clear that I am not a Greek scholar; but rather a lay Bible teacher following the leading of the Holy Spirit. I would welcome insights or corrections from someone out there with this expertise. Hopefully, the Message diversions will be apparent to all. No, I do not recommend only the KJV. Personally I use many different translations, including a Greek Hebrew Study Bible, and the New Living Translation. A foolish practice for Christians is to buy a paraphrase like the Message Bible and then be confused into thinking it is a Bible. When men's words replace God’s Words, the power of God’s Word is lessened. Most knowledgeable Christian’s personal comments on the Bible have just as much power as the Message Bible. Actually they could be more valuable since they are not likely to be confused with the Bible, as the Message often is. Pastors quoting paraphrases as if they are God’s Word is dangerous and quite misleading. I have a hundred examples, but let’s just look directly at the text. My purpose here is to raise a red flag. Buyer beware!

Earlier today, perhaps the greatest teacher on cults in the past century told me that the most dangerous cults are always those that come in the name of Christ and disguise themselves as ministers of the Gospel. Think about that!

John Chapter 3

1-2 There was a man of the Pharisee sect, Nicodemus, a prominent leader among the Jews. Late one night he visited Jesus and said, "Rabbi, we all know you're a teacher straight from God. No one could do all the God-pointing, God-revealing acts you do if God weren't in on it." MSG

1 There was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. 2 This man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, "Rabbi, we know that You are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him." NKJV

I don’t know why the author added the word “sect.” If anything it only makes this verse less clear. John’s words were much clearer. He was a Pharisee, a ruler of the Jews. A prominent leader among the Jews is less clear. The Pharisees were not prominent leaders but rather religious leaders who ruled the people. To rule meant that they had the ability to severely discipline them; jail, try and punish, and even to the degree like when they attempted to stone Jesus, and ultimately forced his crucifixion. Their power had been compromised by Rome, but they still ruled the people. Why does he use the word “late” rather than he came “by night” Does he know it was late? On many points these changes may be viewed as minor and overly critical, but as you will see when you view the changes in the bigger picture, the original meaning can be distorted. Finally, how does; “No one could do all the God-pointing, God-revealing acts you do if God weren't in on it.” make this verse more clear than “for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him?” In these first two verses, my conclusion is that the original is shorter, clearer, and easier to understand than The Message. In fact, in all of the verses below you will notice that Message is always longer that the original. Recently, "religious people adding their views to the scripture," was a primary criticism by an unbeliever I was witnessing to. This is a key reason some falsely conclude the Bible contradicts itself.

3 Jesus said, "You're absolutely right. Take it from me: Unless a person is born from above, it's not possible to see what I'm pointing to—to God's kingdom." MSG

3 Jesus answered and said to him, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." NKJV

Here we have a clear misinterpretation of scripture. Jesus does not tell Nicodemus; “You're absolutely right” … but rather he is talking most assuredly about a new subject … being born again and seeing the kingdom of God. Jesus has changed the subject and gone directly to His main point; and is explaining to this religious leader that he is spiritually lost. Less is more!

4 "How can anyone," said Nicodemus, "be born who has already been born and grown up? You can't re-enter your mother's womb and be born again. What are you saying with this 'born-from-above' talk?" MSG

4 Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?" NKJV

Nicodemus makes it clear this is news to him here. He does not challenge Christ with the mother’s womb statement, as the message somehow implies; but respectfully asks him about that which is unclear to him. The “born-from-above talk” phrase makes it sound as if he is making light of or confronting Jesus as the other Pharisees had done previously. Less is more.

5-6 Jesus said, "You're not listening. Let me say it again. Unless a person submits to this original creation—the 'wind-hovering-over-the-water' creation, the invisible moving the visible, a baptism into a new life—it's not possible to enter God's kingdom. When you look at a baby, it's just that: a body you can look at and touch. But the person who takes shape within is formed by something you can't see and touch—the Spirit—and becomes a living spirit. MSG

5 Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. NKJV

Please … How in the world does he come up with this? Most assuredly is commonly translated truly, truly or verily verily. Clearly this wording to give more emphasis to what Jesus is about to say not point out to Nicodemus that he is not listening. This “wind hovering over the water creation” line is total babble. Born of water is natural birth, born of the Spirit is spiritual birth, or to be Born Again as Jesus explains. Any time someone takes three lines from the mouth of Jesus and converts the verse into six lines from their imagination and calls it Biblical, they are in danger of committing Biblical heresy. I think it may have been accomplished here. All of these two verses are over the top. The original is clearer and much easier to understand. This is the perfect example of Less is More!

Not a single word needs to be added to the Words of Christ.

7-8 "So don't be so surprised when I tell you that you have to be 'born from above'—out of this world, so to speak. You know well enough how the wind blows this way and that. You hear it rustling through the trees, but you have no idea where it comes from or where it's headed next. That's the way it is with everyone 'born from above' by the wind of God, the Spirit of God. MSG

7 Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit." NKJV

Once again “Less is more!” He doesn’t do as bad of a job of adding words here but the original text is exceedingly far better. “Born from above' by the wind of God”??? Give me a break. That is far-fetched, at best.

9Nicodemus asked, "What do you mean by this? How does this happen?" MSG

9 Nicodemus answered and said to Him, "How can these things be?" NKJV


Even here, changes are made for the sake of change, not for clarity.

10-12 Jesus said, "You're a respected teacher of Israel and you don't know these basics? Listen carefully. I'm speaking sober truth to you. I speak only of what I know by experience; I give witness only to what I have seen with my own eyes. There is nothing secondhand here, no hearsay. Yet instead of facing the evidence and accepting it, you procrastinate with questions. If I tell you things that are plain as the hand before your face and you don't believe me, what use is there in telling you of things you can't see, the things of God? MSG

10 Jesus answered and said to him, "Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things? 11 Most assuredly, I say to you, we speak what We know and testify what We have seen, and you do not receive Our witness. 12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? NKJV

What makes the author think Nicodemus is not listening? I am convinced he was listening intently. God was speaking and He was possibly the only Pharisee who received Christ as his Lord and Savior. He was asking questions because he was seeking the Truth. That is not procrastination. Telling Nicodemus “earthly things” was a reference to information that was easily understood through human experience, logic and training; as compared to heavenly things which were things of the spirit such as miracles and spiritual birth. Once again, Peterson’s more is less.

13-15 "No one has ever gone up into the presence of God except the One who came down from that Presence, the Son of Man. In the same way that Moses lifted the serpent in the desert so people could have something to see and then believe, it is necessary for the Son of Man to be lifted up—and everyone who looks up to him, trusting and expectant, will gain a real life, eternal life. MSG

13 No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven. 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. NKJV

How does this expansion: “and everyone who looks up to him, trusting and expectant, will gain a real life, eternal life” clarify or improve upon the original? … “whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.” Did Jesus die on the cross so that men could look up to Him; or did He die as a sacrifice to save men from the consequences of their sin? This Truth is about believing in him and His sacrifice on the cross for our sins and accepting Christ as our Lord and savior. “will gain a real life?” Where does he come up with this idea: that our life here on earth is anything other than a real worldly life. It is not eternal life in heaven, but it certainly is a real life? It is no wonder that unbelievers are confused if pastors are encouraging them to read this babble. And new believers are liable to come to false conclusions. Less is not only more but less is also Truth; rather than a misleading deception.

16-18" This is how much God loved the world: He gave his Son, his one and only Son. And this is why: so that no one need be destroyed; by believing in him, anyone can have a whole and lasting life. God didn't go to all the trouble of sending his Son merely to point an accusing finger, telling the world how bad it was. He came to help, to put the world right again. Anyone who trusts in him is acquitted; anyone who refuses to trust him has long since been under the death sentence without knowing it. And why? Because of that person's failure to believe in the one-of-a-kind Son of God when introduced to him. MSG

16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. 18 He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. NKJV

The actual Word “that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” is once again, much clearer. “Destroyed” is a poor substitution for perish, and “by believing in him, anyone can have a whole and lasting life” is less of an absolute than “whoever believes” and whole and lasting life does not make “everlasting life” more clear, but actually less clear for me. Those of other religions or no religion at all might believe their life on earth is a whole and lasting life already, but surely not an everlasting life. God did not come to put the world right or to help. He came to save the world from the sins of mankind. “One of a kind Son of God” seems ill-defined: “the only begotten Son of God.” These words have meaning. Condemned by God says so much more than “pointing a finger or telling the world how bad it is.” Why not just say: “eternally condemned” if one wants to clarify God’s condemnation?

19-21"This is the crisis we're in: God-light streamed into the world, but men and women everywhere ran for the darkness. They went for the darkness because they were not really interested in pleasing God. Everyone who makes a practice of doing evil, addicted to denial and illusion, hates God-light and won't come near it, fearing a painful exposure. But anyone working and living in truth and reality welcomes God-light so the work can be seen for the God-work it is." MSG

19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. 21 But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God." NKJV

It is not a crisis but rather eternal condemnation by God for our sins and for following the evil one. A crisis could be a bad grade or an automobile accident. God-light did not stream into the world. What is this supposed to mean? Jesus is the light of the world. He came in the form of a man to die for our sins. He is Love and Truth. Satan is darkness, evil and the lie. Jesus exposes the evil darkness and brought the Truth to men. Due to their fallen nature, men loved darkness rather than light, because their sin feeds their lust and pride. Fallen man is not willing to accept the truth because he is too proud to admit his sins and he wants to be the god of his own life, and do whatever he wishes. Where does all of this God-light and God-work talk come from? Less is More!

Less of God’s Word always says more than when convoluted by the wisdom of men! I sometimes enjoy a paraphrase to listen to as I fall asleep but only if the text does not change the original meaning to support some mans revisions and conclusions.

I hope this has been a healthy exercise for you; it certainly brought up my red flags. I cannot understand how so many Christian Leaders have recommended The Message Bible. The only thing I can imagine is that they are doing a favor for a friend, or a book publisher ... and that is an abomination!

God Bless you my friends, Bob
Copyright: Robert West 2011

Unknown Unknowns

When Donald Rumsfeld was Secretary of Defense, he coined some phrases
about knowledge that apply far beyond military matters.

Secretary Rumsfeld pointed out that there are some things that we know that we know.
He called those "known knowns."
We may, for example, know how many aircraft carriers some other country has.
We may also know that they have troops and tanks, without knowing how many.
In Rumsfeld's phrase, that would be an "unknown known" --
a gap in our knowledge that we at least know exists.

Finally, there are things we don't even know exist, much less anything about them.
These are "unknown unknowns" -- and they are the most dangerous.
We had no clue, for example, when dawn broke on September 11, 2001,
that somebody was going to fly two commercial airliners
into the World Trade Center that day.



Dr. Thomas Sowell


There are similar kinds of gaps in our knowledge in the economy.
Unfortunately, our own government creates uncertainties that can paralyze the economy,
especially when these uncertainties take the form of "unknown unknowns."

The short-run quick fixes that seem so attractive to so many politicians, and to many in the media, create many unknowns that make investors reluctant to invest and employers reluctant to employ. Politicians may only look as far ahead as the next election, but investors have to look ahead for as many years as it will take for their investments to start bringing in some money.

The net result is that both our financial institutions and our businesses have had record amounts of cash sitting idle while millions of people can't find jobs. Ordinarily these institutions make money by investing money and hiring workers. Why not now?

Because numerous and unpredictable government interventions create many unknowns, including "unknown unknowns."

The quick fix that got both Democrats and Republicans off the hook with a temporary bipartisan tax compromise, several months ago, leaves investors uncertain as to what the tax rate will be when any money they invest today starts bringing in a return in another two or three or ten years. It is known that there will be taxes but nobody knows what the tax rate will be then.

Some investors can send their investment money to foreign countries, where the tax rate is already known, is often lower than the tax rate in the United States and -- perhaps even more important -- is not some temporary, quick-fix compromise that is going to expire before their investments start earning a return.

Although more foreign investments were coming into the United States, a few years ago, than there were American investments going to foreign countries, today it is just the reverse. American investors are sending more of their money out of the country than foreign investors are sending here.

Since 2009, according to the Wall Street Journal, "the U.S. has lost more than $200 billion in investment capital." They add: "That is the equivalent of about two million jobs that don't exist on these shores and are now located in places like China, Germany and India."

President Obama's rhetoric deplores such "outsourcing," but his administration's policies make outsourcing an ever more attractive alternative to investing in the United States and creating American jobs.

Blithely piling onto American businesses both known costs like more taxes and unknowable costs -- such as the massive ObamaCare mandates that are still evolving -- provides more incentives for investors to send their money elsewhere to escape the hassles.

Hardly a month goes by without this administration coming up with a new anti-business policy -- whether directed against Boeing, banks or other private enterprises. Neither investors nor employers can know when the next one is coming or what it will be. These are unknown unknowns.

Such anti-business policies would just be business' problem, except that it is businesses that create jobs.

The biggest losers from creating an adverse business climate may not be businesses themselves -- especially not big businesses, which can readily invest more of their money overseas. The biggest losers are likely to be working people in America, who cannot just relocate to Europe or Asia to take the jobs created there by American multinational corporations.

Written by Thomas Sowell ©Creators Syndicate 7/13/2011
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of The Housing Boom and Bust.

We Need Jobs!

When your dread comes like a storm,and your calamity comes like a whirlwind, when distress and anguish come upon you. Then they will call on me, but I will not answer; They will seek me diligently but they will not find me,

Because they hated knowledge, And did not choose the fear of the LORD.
They would not accept my counsel, They spurned all my reproof.
So they shall eat of the fruit of their own way and be satiated with their own devices.

For the waywardness of the naive will kill them, And the complacency of fools will destroy them. But he who listens to me shall live securely and will be at ease from the dread of evil. Proverbs 1:27-33

We Don’t Need New Taxes, We Need New Taxpayers!

It’s this kind of no-nonsense speech that is making Marco Rubio
a quickly sought after Conservative political figure.
It’s long ...... but full of wisdom!

"Our total debt is about to reach the size of our entire economy. That's kind of the framework in which we're operating in when we discuss this. Now, I actually think we're closer to some sort of agreement on this, Sen. Ayotte, than a lot of people realize.

"I've heard the term thrown around in the last couple days, a 'balanced approach' to dealing with it, and I think there's agreement that there has to be a balanced approach. I certainly have always said that you cannot simply cut your way out of this problem. You have to have a combination of cuts and growth, growth and revenues to government. I think the debate is, how do you accomplish these two things? And I'm not going to focus so much on the cut part of it today. I want to focus on the revenue part of it because that's the part the president and some of my colleagues here have focused on over the last day, this idea of getting more revenue or this new term, 'revenue enhancers,' which is Washington talk for more money to the government.

"And, according to the president, some in his party, most in his party I should say, the idea is simple that...in America that are making a lot of money, more money than maybe they should be making, and they just need to pay more in taxes. And if these people pay more in taxes, then all of these problems will get a lot easier to deal with. That's kind of the viewpoint they bring to this debate.

"Yesterday, we saw, and I know tomorrow the majority leader, we'll be voting here on the floor on something the majority leader has offered up, something called the 'sense of the Senate,' which people watching at home may wonder, 'What is that?' Well, that basically means what's on the Senate's mind. The 'sense of the Senate,' this thing that we're going to be voting on tomorrow, is basically that you've got a bunch of people in this country that make over a million dollars, and that these people need to do more to help with the debt. That's basically the 'sense of the Senate' that there's going to be a vote on tomorrow -- very interesting things.

"So, I looked at it because ultimately this is a serious issue. So, let's explore this with an open mind. Let's not be doctrinaire, let's not be blindly ideological. Let's look at this from a common sense perspective, this idea that all these millionaires and billionaires, if they just paid more taxes, these problems would be solved. Let's analyze it. This is all about math.

"And here's the fact: the fact is it doesn't solve the problem. First of all, if you taxed these people at 100 percent, basically next year you said, 'Look, every penny you make next year the government's going to take it from you,' it still doesn't solve the debt. Not only does that not solve the debt problem, but I looked at a host of other -- a great publication that came out today from the Joint Economics Committee, our colleague Sen. DeMint chairs it. And it kind of outlines some of the tax increases being proposed by our colleagues in the Democratic Party and the president to solve the debt problem. And you add them all up, you add all of these things up -- the jet airplanes, the oil companies, all of the other things they talk about -- you put them all together in one big batch, and you know what it does? It basically deals with nine days and 23 hours worth of deficit spending. Nine days and 23 hours of deficit spending. That's how much it solves. So all this talk about going after people that make all this money, it buys you nine days and 23 hours. Let's round it off. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt. It buys them 10 days of deficit spending reduction. That's what all this stuff rounds up to.

“So, here's the bottom line: These tax increases they're talking about. These so-called revenue enhancers, they don't solve the problem. So what do we do then? Because clearly we have to do two things.

"One, we have to hold the line on spending, if you keep digging yourself in the hole, the hole is going to bury you. But the other thing is, how do you start generating revenue for government so we can start paying down this debt? And that’s what the debate should be about.

“We already know these taxes they're talking about don't work. So, here's what works. Here is what I would suggest works in a balanced approach, using the president's terminology. Let's stop talking about new taxes and start talking about creating new taxpayers, which basically means jobs. Now, here in Washington, this debt is the number one issue on everyone's mind, and rightfully so. It is a major issue. But everywhere else in the real world, the number one issue on people's minds are jobs. And I'll tell you every other problem facing America -- a mortgage crisis, home foreclosure crisis, this debt problem -- all of these issues get easier to deal with if people are gainfully employed across America.

"And the impact that unemployment's having across this country is devastating. We hear about unemployment in facts and figures. They give us numbers, Sen. Ayotte, 'Oh, X percent people are unemployed.' Well, there's stories behind every one of those people. You know who a lot of these people are that are unemployed in America? They are people that have done everything they've been asked to do, and they've done it right. Maybe they served their country overseas, maybe they went to college and got a degree and now came back home. Maybe they worked for 10 or 20 years and did a really good job at work, and now, you know what, they can't find a job. Or maybe they were lucky enough to find a job after losing their original job, but it pays them half as much, and they work twice as long.

"That is the real face of unemployment in America, of people that are hurting. And our job here is to do everything we can to make it easier for them to find a job, not harder. And I think that's what we have to do when it comes to a balanced approach and when we talk about revenue.

“We don't need new taxes. We need new taxpayers, people that are gainfully employed, making money and paying into the tax system. And then we need a government that has the discipline to take that additional revenue and use it to pay down the debt and never grow it again. And that's what we should be focused on, and that's what we're not focused on.

“So you look at all these taxes that are being proposed, and here's what I say. I say we should analyze every single one of them through the lens of job creation, issue number one in America. I want to know which one of these taxes that they're proposing will create jobs. I want to know how many jobs are going to be created by the plane tax? How many jobs are going to be created by the oil company tax that I heard so much about? How many jobs are created by going after the millionaires and billionaires the president talks about? I want to know: How many jobs do they create?

“Because I'll tell you, and I'm going to turn it over to Sen. Ayotte in a second. I'm interested in her perspective on this as a job creator, as the spouse of a job creator who runs a small business, as someone like me who just came off the campaign trail. Let me tell you something. I traveled the state of Florida for two years campaigning. I have never met a job creator who told me that they were waiting for the next tax increase before they started growing their business. I've never met a single job creator who's ever said to me I can't wait until government raises taxes again so I can go out and create a job.

"And I'm curious to know if they say that in New Hampshire because they don't say that in Florida. And so my view on all this is I want to know how many jobs these tax increases the president proposes will create because if they're not creating jobs and they're not creating new taxpayers, they're not solving the problem."
========================================

WITH POLITICIANS LIKE MARCO RUBIO COMING FORWARD ... THERE IS STILL HOPE FOR AMERICA!

But we must never forget:

Unless the LORD builds the house, They labor in vain who build it; Unless the LORD guards the city, The watchman keeps awake in vain.

It is vain for you to rise up early,To retire late, To eat the bread of painful labors; For He gives to His beloved even in his sleep. Psalms 127:1-2

God Bless you my friends, Bob

The Dream That Never Dies ...

Here is a tribute to all of the men and women
who defended our freedom so many years ago.

ENJOY ....

Notes from the owner of the video: 65 Years Ago my Dad shot this film along Kalakaua Ave. in Waikiki capturing spontaneous celebrations that broke out upon first hearing news of the Japanese surrender. Kodachrome 16mm film: God Bless Kodachrome, right? I was able to find an outfit (mymovietransfer.com) to do a much superior scan of this footage to what I had previously posted, so I re-did this film and replaced the older version There are more still images from this amazing day, in color, at discoveringhawaii.com
===================================================================

Hopefully many in the newer generations will catch the spirit
of those common people who made America the greatest country to ever exist.

I hope you had an incredible Independence Day!

God Bless you my friends, Bob

People Of The Lie

Another parable He put forth to them, saying:
"The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field;
but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat and went his way.
But when the grain had sprouted and produced a crop, then the tares also appeared.

So the servants of the owner came and said to him,
Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field?
How then does it have tares?'
He said to them, An enemy has done this.
The servants said to him, 'Do you want us then to go and gather them up?'

But he said, 'No, lest while you gather up the tares
you also uproot the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest,
and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers,
"First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them,
but gather the wheat into my barn.” Matthew 13:24-30



There are many lessons that we can learn from this parable.

The first lesson is that Jesus preached a parable. I imagine that if we could talk to those in the audience that they would say I was there and I heard everything Jesus said with my own ears … but, did they really hear? “And the disciples came and said to Him, "Why do You speak to them in parables?" He answered and said to them, "Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given.” Matthew 13:10-11. Those who listened only to the public message and then went about their business clearly did not hear the divine message and deeper explanation that Jesus shared with the disciples that He met with inside. When we meet with God in frequent, intense, personal prayer, and devotions … He will meet us there, and through the Holy Spirit, and the power of His Word, He will guide us, protect us, and transform us. Stop and pray now; that Jesus will speak to you as you seek deeper truth from His Word. Pray: "Reveal to us the tares of the field." Lord. Now let’s look at His explanation, His wisdom, and the applications of this truth as it applies in the walking out of our daily lives.

The "Parable of the Tares", and Christ's explanation of it must be taken together ... because His exposition explains the parable and the parable illustrates the exposition. Beyond the two, no explanation is needed. The main question we are left with is how does the parable apply in our world today?

Then Jesus sent the multitude away and went into the house. And His disciples came to Him, saying, "Explain to us the parable of the tares of the field." He answered and said to them: "He who sows the good seed is the Son of Man. The field is the world, the good seeds are the sons of the kingdom, but the tares are the sons of the wicked one. The enemy who sowed them is the devil, the harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are the angels. Therefore as the tares are gathered and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of this age. The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness, and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He, who has ears to hear, let him hear! Matthew 13:36-43

As you can clearly see, contrary to what some would have us believe, the scripture is not hard to understand. Jesus is quite clear. These truths are explained without question. The facts are absolute. There is no speculation. There is no debate. There is no room left for the reasoning, or the wisdom of men. We are not left with questions about what He said. Here are the Truths that Jesus establishes here:
1. Jesus is the one who sows the good seed.
2. The World is the field.
3. The good seed are the sons of the kingdom.
4. The tares are the sons of the evil one.
5. The devil is the enemy who sows the tares.
6. The harvest is the end of the age.
7. The reapers are angels.
8. The tares will be gathered and burned with fire.
9. Jesus will send angels to remove all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness.
10. The lawless ones will be condemned to fire.
11. The righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom.
12. He who has ears let him hear.

Listen Up! This is where people are likely to look in another direction. I realize that this type of message causes me to lose readers. Just this week, a friend of mine was teaching a similar message and he was told; "we want to discuss politics". That is fine, as long as it is not men discussing their idle opinions. The tares have greatly corrupted our politics as well. The political questions should be: “how has America been led astray by the lies of the enemies of Christ, and what can we do to bring the gospel back in front of America?” This is our only hope. The rest is dissipation. Unfortunately, a large percentage of Christians have gotten lost in the tares. I’m sorry but Jesus is speaking directly to you and me here ... and the message is deadly serious. The devil who is the enemy of Christ, and his disciples are real. The tares or sons of the evil one are real. They are all around us. The messages of the devil are also tares designed to deceive us. Jesus NEVER lies. Many who are considered good people by Christians are actually tares. These are the ones who have rejected Christ, His Word, and His Gospel of salvation. The aim of the evil one is to neutralize the wheat and render it un-edible.

So in the context of my recent posts, what tares has the devil seduced America with? Answers: Darwinian Evolution; the Modernist teachings; and the social gospel are a good place to start looking for heresy. Wait a minute you say … what’s wrong with doing good deeds as the social gospel promotes? Nothing; unless your message deletes the Gospel of Jesus Christ in the process, along with the teachings of God’s Word; and replaces those teachings with Darwinian Evolution, environmentalism, the wisdom of men, and a whole list of other worthy and well-meaning goals that are great aims for the betterment of mankind but are contrary to, and in defiance of the Bible and the teachings of our Savior. That is heresy.

Question: if a missionary spent an entire adult life ministering to the poor and giving medical care to the sick; but never shared the gospel of salvation and eternal life with these same poor sick people, would this be a temporal or an eternal ministry? I have a relative on such a mission to Africa. My prayer is that the experience will see her come to Christ as her Savior during the process. Her intentions are good, but without Christ it is all aid for the moment.

The immediate problem for America is The People of the Lie.

The Modernist movement established the battle lines. The Modernists concluded that there are no absolutes that they can reject the established doctrines of Christianity: creation, the virgin birth, the miracles of Christ, salvation, justification and eternal life through Christ and then believe whatever they choose and call it Christianity. Fundamentalists on the other hand say no! There are fundamentals of the Christian faith that are absolutely taken by faith and these Truths are not negotiable.

The tares are often disguised as beautiful flowers and mixed in as shown in the wheat field picture above.
They are beautiful flowers but they are not wheat, and I imagine they would make you sick if you ate them.

We have an entire generation of adults who have been trained in a variety of heresies that they now have accepted as truth, and they call themselves Christians. Their missions are good deeds and well meaning. The question is: are these beliefs Christian? Many are religions that have been allowed to call themselves Christian, but promote doctrines contrary to God’s Word. Many have blended Christianity with the teachings of the world … often rejecting the Bible when conflicts arise. Others are religions that promote good and positive principles. And of course there are many who openly deny Christ; but instead stand on principles that promote the common welfare of all. Lastly, we have those who reject all religion and have determined a belief system based upon whatever they choose to believe. After all this is America … the land of the free.

All who reject the gospel of Christ are doomed; and unfortunately America will ultimately fall, unless a revival occurs. We must pray to that end. We are not to judge them … but Christ judges them all. “He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” John 3:18

“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.” 1 Timothy 4:1-2

As predicted by Clarence E. Macartney, in his response to Fosdick 90 years ago: "Shall Unbelief Win?" ... where he argued that liberalism had been progressively "secularizing" the church and, if left unchecked would lead to "a Christianity of opinions and principles and good purposes, but Christianity without worship, without God, and without Jesus Christ." This prediction has now come to pass. Churches standing on Biblical fundamentals are now the exception rather than the norm. People want to be entertained. People want a message that goes along with what they have come to believe. In other words ... people want to be the god of their own belief system.

That is their option, but don't call it Christianity.

The question that must be addressed NOW by each believer is: Do the beliefs I have accepted as Christianity lead to eternal salvation with Christ in heaven or am I lost eternally due to false doctrines. Is anything that you believe contrary to God's Word?

Thus we see that the Lord Jesus Christ solemnly warned that MANY who will do wonderful things IN HIS NAME will turn out to be unsaved people who did not know Him in truth. It is not enough that someone loves “Jesus” or serves “the Lord” or preaches “the gospel.” The apostle Paul warned of false christ’s, false spirits, and false gospels 2 Corinthians 11:3-4. The Devil can and does counterfeit everything God is doing in this age. He has his own gospel, his own doctrine of conversion, even his own brand of holiness.

The only way we can know for sure what is genuine and what is counterfeit is to test it by the infallible Word of God. The people at Berea were commended for doing this: “These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so” Acts 17:11

Those who carefully test everything by the Word of God today are often considered as troublemakers by many within mainstream evangelicalism, but the Bible warns that those who are not careful are foolish. “The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going” Proverbs 14:15. The wise man knows there are many spiritual dangers. He is aware that he has a formidable spiritual enemy who transforms himself into an angel of light and whose ministers transform themselves into ministers of righteousness. The wise man takes heed to the Bible’s warnings: “Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour” 1 Peter 5:8. “... Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works” 2 Corinthians 11:14-15. Because of these spiritual realities, the wise Christian is extremely cautious. He does not simply accept someone as a genuine Christian because of a mere profession or because of “good works.” He investigates what gospel the person holds, what Christ he is trusting, what spirit he is following.

How is this lie being delivered and willingly received by millions who have in their heart trusted Christ? Search your heart and you tell me. I don’t want to be judgmental or legalistic … but the examples are NOW everywhere. Here is an extreme example of how deception misleads a most loving person. Notice the number of Christian leaders who were not Bereans in this article??? There are many, many, more examples.

God Bless you my Friends, Bob
Copyright: Robert West 2011

Christian Fundamentals

Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord or of me His prisoner,
but join with me in suffering for the gospel according to the power of God,
who has saved us and called us with a holy calling,
not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace

which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity,
but now has been revealed by the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus,
who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel,

Retain the standard of sound words which you have heard from me,
in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus.
Guard, through the Holy Spirit who dwells in us,
the treasure which has been entrusted to you.
2 Timothy 1:8-14




Do you believe in the fundamentals of the Christian faith?

Christianity in America has gone through a transition during the past hundred years that for the most part has not furthered the cause of Christ in a positive way. I realize that this is my conclusion and you might have another view, but I will make my case and you be the judge.

The first real modern challenge to Biblical Christianity was delivered by Charles Briggs who had studied Higher Criticism also known as the Historical-Critical method which was a development of the German academy that he learned while studying in Germany. His first address was given in 1876. This led to a series of responses and counter-responses between Briggs and the Princeton theologians in the pages of The Presbyterian Review. They contended that Briggs was a heretic.

In his teaching Briggs contended that Higher Criticism had proven that much that was believed about the Bible was not true. Among the things that he stated were that the Scriptures as a whole are riddled with errors, and that the doctrine of scriptural inerrancy taught at Princeton Theological Seminary "is a ghost of modern evangelicalism to frighten children." Not only is the Westminster Confession wrong, but the very foundation of the Confession, the Bible, could not be used to create theological absolutes. This address led to widespread outrage which led to an overwhelming vote by the general assembly to veto Briggs appointment. The church then affirmed the belief that the bible is without error. Briggs was ruled a heretic and defrocked, although shortly thereafter, Briggs was ordained an Episcopal priest. Without question this teaching was a lie of the enemies of Christ then and it is a lie from those who promote these false statements today.


The dismissal by the Presbytery of Briggs led to a period of relative peace. Then in 1909 the same debate reappeared with the issue of whether or not to ordain three men who refused to agree with the doctrine of the virgin birth of Jesus. The men did not deny the virgin birth; they just said that they were not prepared to affirm it. The majority eventually ordained the men; but the minority challenged the decision which resulted in ongoing conflict. To resolve the conflict, church leaders reached a compromise with the three men but at the same time adopted a declaration that stated that five fundamental doctrines were “necessary and essential” to the Christian faith:

The inspiration of the Bible by the Holy Spirit and the inerrancy of Scripture as a result of this.
The virgin birth of Christ.
The belief that Christ's death was an atonement for sin.
The bodily resurrection of Christ.
The historical reality of Christ's miracles.

These five propositions would become known to history as the "Five Fundamentals" and by the late 1910s, theological conservatives rallying around the Five Fundamentals came to be known as "fundamentalists." As we know over the years, the term fundamentalist has taken on a negative connotation and is often assigned to those considered imbalanced religious fanatics. There has been a relentless and ongoing attack on conservative Christians from the mainstream media and the elitist intellectual establishment. But in reality, Christian fundamentalists are at the heart of the founding of America and built many of the most influential and prestigious universities in America. I am proud to claim to be a fundamentalist in the tradition of these brave Christians who stood for Christ and His Word in the early days of America built upon the truths of Christianity.

In 1922 a liberal spokesman named Harry Fosdick delivered a sermon at the First Presbyterian Church, New York that set the stage for a battle over this issue within Christianity that continues to this day. This battle is best known as the “Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy.” The sermon pointed out differences between liberal and conservative Christians, most of which remain today. In this sermon, Fosdick presented the liberals in both the Presbyterian and Baptist denominations as sincere evangelical Christians who were struggling to reconcile new discoveries in history, science, and religion with the Christian faith.

Fundamentalists, on the other hand, were cast as intolerant conservatives who refused to deal with these new discoveries and had arbitrarily drawn the line as to what was off limits in religious discussion. The end result is mainline liberal Christianity on one side and evangelical and fundamentalist Christianity on the other side. The primary battlefield was Princeton Theological University which had been founded by Christians who would become known as Fundamentalists. Many people, Fosdick argued; "simply found it impossible to accept the virgin birth of Christ, the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, or the literal second coming of Christ in the light of modern science. Given the different points of view within the church, only tolerance and liberty could allow for these different perspectives to co-exist in the church."

It is a given as Fosdick argued, that many people simply find it impossible to accept the teaching of God's Word in light of their feelings, lust, and pride; but "how dare they call their views Christian thought or Chrisatianity" and why would any Christian allow this babble, this rejection of Jesus Christ, His miracles, and the perversion of His Word to poison the truth, and be taught in seminaries and churches as the truth throughout America. These deniers of Christ and His Word are atheists, not Christians. That false belief is their right, but to twist it into Christian thought is an abortion of truth. They have grievously infected the gospel. This teaching is heresy and doctrines of the evil one.

John D. Rockefeller Jr. was strongly involved in the Social Gospel movement which is a Protestant Christian intellectual movement. The movement applied Christian ethics to social problems, especially social justice, inequality, liquor, crime, racial tensions, slums, bad hygiene, child labor, weak labor unions, poor schools, and the danger of war. Theologically, the Social Gospel leaders were overwhelmingly post-millennialist. That is because they believed the Second Coming could not happen until humankind rid itself of social evils by human effort. Social Gospel leaders were predominantly associated with the liberal wing of the Progressive Movement and most were theologically liberal. The views of the social gospel liberal intellectuals were closely aligned with the Fosdick Modernist movement. This left the fundamentalists with a strongly financed opposition to their stand on the Truth of God’s Word.

The problem was explained well by conservative Clarence E. Macartney, pastor of Arch Street Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia, when he responded to Fosdick with a sermon of his own, entitled "Shall Unbelief Win?" which was quickly published in a pamphlet. He argued that liberalism had been progressively "secularizing" the church and, if left unchecked would lead to "a Christianity of opinions and principles and good purposes, but Christianity without worship, without God, and without Jesus Christ." This is the key point I wanted to make with this post.


The battle faced by those fundamentalists over a hundred years ago is the same battle every Biblically minded Christian faces today. A Christianity that denies the virgin birth, the substitutionary death and resurrection of Jesus Christ for our sins is just another man-made religion. I want none of that. A Christianity that denies the Creator, and the Truth of God’s Word is no Christianity at all. Will a social gospel that might help cure the ills of mankind be beneficial in a number of ways? … you bet. Is this social gospel leading people to Christ as Savior or helping people live more comfortably? Are the ideas that reach out to, and appeal to people with many varying beliefs going to be popular? … absolutely. But it is not the Good News that Jesus Christ brought for the salvation of mankind 2000 years ago on the cross at Calvary.

This is the question we must all ask ourselves. Where do you stand on these fundamentals? Do you believe in ...

The inspiration of the Bible by the Holy Spirit and the inerrancy of Scripture as a result of this.
The virgin birth of Christ.
The belief that Christ's death was an atonement for sin.
The bodily resurrection of Christ.
The historical reality of Christ's miracles.

Can we stand on God’s Word as the source of our healing, hope, strength, power, courage, strength, and eternal salvation? Is God omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent? Did God create all things? Will Jesus return in the clouds and rapture his followers to be with Him in Heaven for eternity? Is there anything we can ever do to separate ourselves from the love of Christ? Is our salvation certain and secure? Does Jesus wish for all to spend eternity with Him in heaven? Is there only one way to receive eternal Life? Can we stand on His promises?

Is God’s Word the Eternal Truth that we can stand upon regardless of feelings, human logic, and the teachings of men? Or is the Bible riddled with errors, and a ghost of the Truth used to frighten children? Did Jesus lie to us, or did He tell us the truth?

“Do not let your heart be troubled; believe in God, believe also in Me. “In My Father’s house are many dwelling places; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you. “If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself, that where I am, there you may be also. “And you know the way where I am going.” Thomas said to Him, “Lord, we do not know where You are going, how do we know the way?” Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me. John 14:1-6

God bless you my friends, Bob
Copyright: Robert West 2011

The Darwinian Miracles?

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day. Then God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so. God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day. Then God said, “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. Genesis 1:1-9

Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind”; and it was so. God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good. Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” Genesis 1:24-27

Do you believe in miracles?

This is the question that everyone must inevitably answer … sooner or later. The verses quoted above are miracles. There is no other way to explain them. One cannot deny these truths and call themselves a Christian. Jesus birth, death, and resurrection were miracles. Do you believe Jesus walked on water, raised the dead, and created the water He walked upon? Did Jesus mere presence calm the storm? There are valid reasons why these truths should not be taught in public school science classes. They are miracles. They are Truth, but miraculous spiritual Truth … to believe in them requires a belief in Jesus Christ, the God of all creation.

God spoke creation into existence.

What came first, the chicken or the egg?
Here is the answer: God! ……… He is omnipresent.
God created the chicken.
In the beginning God was there. GOD is where all of these questions end.

If scientists find evidence that confirms these miracles, what should science do with this evidence? Should it be considered, or automatically disregarded as contrary to naturalistic evolution, the belief that atheistic scientists have chosen to adopt as their philosophy or religion.

It has been concluded by scientists that there are only two explanations for the fact that life exists: creation or evolution. They have rejected creation as a miraculous fantasy of the spiritually deluded, and scientifically ignorant. Therefore; evolution must be true by default, they conclude. There is no other option. But there is a dilemma that comes with this false logic. It has also been concluded by scientists that for Darwinian evolution to be true, it would require a far bigger miracle than creation. And if Darwinian evolution is in fact scientifically un-provable, and mathematically impossible; therefore to believe in evolution is in reality, a form of religion which means to teach evolution should be banned from our public schools.


The truth is that life is a miracle, you can believe one way or the other … but both beliefs are miraculous and therefore each belief is religious and philosophical. This is what I will demonstrate here today.

Now it is clear that the religion of Christianity teaches that in order to be a follower of Christ, we must accept these miracles.
But why do I contend that if true, evolution would be an even bigger miracle that Creation? Because without God, untold trillions of miraculous accidents needed to happen over an endless period of time.

I contend evolution leads to total chaos. Read this: "Here is a mathematical equation for how this all began: If 0=+1+(-1)then something which is 0 might just as well become 1 and -1. Perhaps in an infinite sea of nothingness, globs of positive and negative energy in equal-sized pairs are constantly forming, and after passing through evolutionary changes, combining once more and vanishing. We are in one of those globs in the period of time between nothing and nothing, and wondering about it."1

These questions are complex beyond our imagination but I will attempt to simplify to avoid scientific boredom. In his article, “The Queen of Science Examines the King of Fools” David Rodabaugh PH.D and Professor of Mathematics at the University of Missouri shows that given the amount of time evolutionists claim is necessary, the probability that a simple living organism could be produced by mutations “is so small as to constitute a scientific impossibility” --- the chance that it could have happened “anywhere in the universe … is less than 1 in 10 with 2,999,942 zeros after it. This figure is terminal to evolution.2 According to the French expert on probability, Emil Borel, who explains the “single law of chance” as follows: (1 chance in 10 with 50 zeros) this is the point beyond which things never occur.3 To better understand the size of 10 with 50 zeros; keep in mind that one trillion equals 10 with twelve zeros. A chance of 1 in 10 with 50 zeros is an unimaginable number equal to one chance in 100 trillion, trillion, trillion … trillion. Now try to even comprehend 1 in 10 with 2,999,942 zeros. Remember we are only trying to consider the amount of time evolutionists claim is necessary for the miracle of evolution to have occurred in one simple mutation. This number is beyond impossible from both a mathematical and scientific analysis. This equation does not consider the probability of the actual miracles beyond a simple mutation.
Evolutionary science is clearly beyond bazaar.

If this is true, why do scientists ignore these facts and promote evolution as fact?

I will refer to Dr. George Wald the esteemed evolutionist and Nobel Prize winning Zoologist to answer this question. “The reasonable view was to believe in Spontaneous Generation (SG); the only other alternative, is to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. For this reason many scientists a century ago chose to regard the belief in Spontaneous Generation as a philosophical necessity … Most modern biologists, having viewed with satisfaction the downfall of the Spontaneous Generation hypothesis, are yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, and are as a result left with nothing.” Dr. Wald goes on to conclude that the SG of a living organism was impossible, "but even so, I choose to believe that SG occurred because after all, here we are.”4 Spontaneous Generation (SG) defined: abiogenesis: hypothetical organic phenomenon by which living organisms are created from nonliving matter. Evolutionists say time plus chance resulted in life. Time has become a deity of sorts. Time is the miracle in Dr. Wald’s naturalistic evolutionary belief system, but unfortunately time cannot turn an apple into a helicopter, or a frog into a prince. On the other hand, with God, the Creator, all things are possible.

It takes faith beyond imagination to believe in Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism, as well. Dr. George Bahnsen further explains evolution's dilemma: “Evolution is not a testable scientific hypothesis at all, but rather a philosophical paradigm preferred by some men to discredit the Biblical doctrine of creation.”5

Evolution is philosophically comfortable for the world of naturalistic materialists who are for the most part confessing atheists. The idea of creation by God or any other intelligent designer of any kind is totally unacceptable to them in any form, regardless of evidence. Creating one’s own ethical and spiritual values is far more appealing to atheists and naturalists.

Evolutionist Michael Ruse adds: “I must point out that orthodox scientists loathe scientific creationism and do all in their power to oppose it”6 Please note his use of the word "orthodox." I don't think I have seen or heard "orthodox" used beyond describing very religious Jews. Does this imply that we are referring to scientists who approach their naturalistic beliefs with a deeply religious fervor?

Evolutionist Colin Patterson at the American Museum of Natural History asked his audience one simple but key question which made clear his doubts about much of what has been thought to be secure knowledge about the process of evolution as follows: “Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing … that is true?” I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time but eventually one person said, “I do know one thing---it ought not to be taught in high school.”7

And here is another of my favorites: Ken Hsu, the evolutionist professor at the Geological Institute in Zurich and former President of the International Association of Sedimentologists writes “we have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy.
It’s about time we cry: “The Emperor has no clothes.”8

What about all of the evidence for evolution? One of the supposed greatest discoveries supporting the idea that life could evolve from non-life in the past century was a simple experiment performed by Dr. Stanley Miller. The scientist placed methane, ammonia, and hydrogen in a glass container with boiling water. Then he zapped it with a spark-discharge device to stimulate the lightning that would strike the early earth’s atmosphere (supposedly containing these elements). In a few days, amino acids were formed, the building blocks of proteins, part of the basic stuff of life. Supposedly, these lightning-induced compounds would subsequently evolve upward in the primitive oceans. The reaction to this experiment was worldwide. The scientific world quickly grasped this materialistic straw in order to avoid any theistic considerations. World renowned Astronomer Carl Sagan and author of the famous book Cosmos and the TV series as well called Dr. Millers experiment “the single most significant step in convincing many scientists that life is likely be abundant in the cosmos”9 Chemist William Day described it as “An experiment that broke the logjam” to show that the first step in the origin of life was not a chance event, but one that had been inevitable.”10

"Dr. Miller's experiment was refuted by Creationist Chemist Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith, who has three Doctorates. Dr. Wilder-Smith explained; “that the original Miller experiment that is so often stated as evidence that life could arise spontaneously does no such thing. He further explains that Miller did not take into account the fact the supposed proof amino acids would actually be broken down by the excess water in the ocean, and therefore that the ocean is the least likely place that life could originate. Further, he explains the fact that the preferences of scientists in general for the philosophy of naturalism or materialism is the real reason abiogenesis is accepted … not scientific data.”

"Dr. Wilder-Smith then proceeds to explain Chirality. A scientific reality that would effectively deliver these supposed miracle amino acids: DOA! And rendering the false premise of abiogenesis and evolution that was generally taken for granted by science; hopelessly invalid. This conclusion is categorical and absolute, and cannot be changed by special conditions. Unfortunately science books continue to promote this false teaching as if it provides the last link in the chain of evidence for "chance biogenesis." To claim that Miller has provided the first step for spontaneous biogenesis involves a willful misleading of the uninformed general public in the interests of biased materialistic philosophy."11

Like I have said previously, I have a thousand of these quotes and could go on and on … so why do so many esteemed and prominent scientists hold to what they know to be false science? A key tactic is to promote the deception that all credible science is in agreement on evolution. That is clearly a deliberate lie. It has simply become their philosophy and/or religion. It is the basis or core of their belief system. They have accepted naturalistic evolution by faith.

The point is that the existence of mankind---or of living things generally isn’t just one miracle, it is a succession of endless miracles. Every combination of factors to produce the simplest mechanism for evolution to occur would require countless more miracles. To teach otherwise is false science. This premise of Darwinian evolution is nothing more that naturalistic materialism presented as science in a way devised to rebuke the Creator of all things.

The false religion of evolution should not be taught in public schools. It is leading the world away from the Creator of all things.

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, Romans 1:20-22

God bless you my friends, Bob
Copyright: Robert West 2011

Highly recommended: Primary Reference: Darwin's Leap Of Faith, John Ankerberg and John Weldon
Footnotes:
1. Isaac Asimov "What is Beyond the Universe?" Science digest, April 1971 p.69 in Heeren, show me God p.118
2. David J. Rodabaugh, "The Queen of Science Examines the King of Fools" Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1975 p.14
3. James Coppedge, Evolution: Possible or Impossible? Zondervan 1973 p.260
4. R. Clyde McCone, Three Levels of Anthropological Objection to Evolution," in the Creation Research Society Quarterly, march 1973, p.208
5. Greg Bahnsen in The Challenge of Design p.87
6. Karl Popper, Unended Quests: An Intellectual Autobiography p 168-169
7. Phillip E. Johnson, Darwin On Trial InterVarsity, 1991 p.10
8. Hsu, reply Geology, Vol 14, pp.532-34 (1986) in Bird Vol. 2, p.516
9. Ankerberg/Weldon, Darwin's Leap of Faith pg. 171-74
10.William L. Bradley/Charles Thaxton, "Information and the Origin of Life" in Moreland Creation hypothesis pp. 173-74
11.Ankerberg/Weldon, Darwin's Leap of Faith pg. 171-74

Train Up a Child

He who walks with wise men will be wise,
But the companion of fools will suffer harm.


He who withholds his rod hates his son,
But he who loves him disciplines him diligently.
Proverbs 13:20,24





Liberals continue to baffle me.


On one hand, they demand to reserve the absolute right to kill their unborn children anytime it becomes an inconvenience.

On the other hand, a few weeks later as soon as that baby is born they immediately want to strip you of your rights as a parent and want to dictate every part of your parenting life…from circumcision to discipline.



Spanker? You Might Get The Clanker!
written by Liberty Juice.com

A new story straight out of my home state of Texas set my blood to the boiling point as a parent who believes that there is a cataclysmic difference between child abuse and a well-deserved, appropriately placed spanking.


Rosalina Gonzales had pleaded guilty to a felony charge of injury to a child for what prosecutors had described as a “pretty simple, straightforward spanking case.” They noted she didn’t use a belt or leave any bruises, just some red marks.

Raise your hand, anyone, if you’ve ever had some well deserved red marks on your hiney placed there by a loving mother and father intent on raising a productive member of society? (My hand is straight up in the air.) I personally feared every time my mom whipped the hairbrush out of her purse or I heard my dad say, “When we get home, you are to meet me in your bedroom.” I knew I had crossed the line and would soon be getting my comeuppance. However, it was always done in love and even at the height of that discipline as a young child, I knew that.


A judge in Corpus Christi, Texas had some harsh words for a mother charged with spanking her own child before sentencing her to probation.

“You don’t spank children today,” said Judge Jose Longoria. “In the old days, maybe we got spanked, but there was a different quarrel. You don’t spank children.”



Rosalina Gonzales had pleaded guilty to a felony charge of injury to a child for what prosecutors had described as a “pretty simple, straightforward spanking case.” They noted she didn’t use a belt or leave any bruises, just some red marks.As part of the plea deal, Gonzales will serve five years probation, during which time she’ll have to take parenting classes, follow CPS guidelines, and make a $50 payment to the Children’s Advocacy Center.

Longaria needs a lesson straight from the heart of Texas that can hopefully be taught through the next judicial election. And maybe a spanking as well. Via CBN News:


The Texas Attorney General’s office declined to comment Wednesday on the legality of spanking when contacted by several media organizations. However, the attorney general’s website has the following information posted under the title Is “Spanking OK?”

“Texas law allows the use of force, but not deadly force, against a child by the child’s parent, guardian, or other person who is acting in loco parentis. Most parents do, in fact, use corporal punishment at least occasionally, and most do not, in fact, consider it abusive. Experts disagree about the advisability of ever spanking a child. Some say that, combined with other methods of discipline, mild spanking of a small child is harmless and effective. Others claim that other methods of discipline work as well as spanking or better, and that spanking is not necessary…”

It looks very clearly to me that this judge has overstepped his boundaries as Texas allows spankings. Perhaps this judge should spend some time over at the Juvenile Courts and see what happens when there is a lack of good, solid discipline in a home; the same court which now holds parents responsible for the child’s actions.

It is my understanding that Judge Longoria is up for re-election in 2012. Hopefully this will be the noodle that sticks on the wall and everyone remembers this incident when it is time to vote!
Reference: LibertyJuice.com ; Spanker, You might Get the Clanker June 20, 2011
===============================================================================

America is about to fall of the edge of a cliff. The philosophy that brings us to the no spanking conclusion is clearly anti-God. This is the aim of Cultural Marxism read here. (Whatever God's Word teaches is false and the opposite is true.) The verse above is quite clear "He who withholds his rod hates his son, But he who loves him disciplines him diligently." I would say that the judge above is in direct violation of our freedom of religion. He has a philosophy that is grounded in the teaching of the world. What right does the state have to rule against this woman.

Years ago, when we entered our daughters into the local Christian School, they asked my wife and I to sign an authorization to allow for the discipline of our children. We asked what this entailed and the principal explained that in extreme circumstances the school administered spankings with a paddle. We hesitatingly agreed to allow corporal punishment, based upon the above verse.

On a personal I only recall a few times that I received a spanking, but I can assure you that my fear of discipline played a key roll in my obeying my parents. we all have a different experience as children and raising our children. Please share your words of wisdom on this issue ... below.

And sadly some children are sadistically and sexually abused. The practices of Islam and other false beliefs bring horror stories to my mind. What should the governments role be in the area of discipline?

My personal opinion is that parents are responsible to train up their children. This is not the governments responsibility. If parents abuse their children, they should be prosecuted according to our laws; but a spanking is not child abuse. For Christians the verse is clear to not discipline your children is to hate them, because you are not training them in the difference between right and wrong. On the other hand to discipline our children is to love them.

On a personal parenting level, I disciplined my daughters but I never spanked them. For a large part of that time I was not a Christian. I am convinced that I did not do my daughters any favors. I have the greatest respect for some young parents I know, as I watch them now discipline their children as they train them up to be loving citizens. Others follow the psychology of the judge in the story above and the result is spoiled, self centered, selfish unloving children. We can never go wrong when we follow God's Truth.

And we must keep in mind ... the companion of fools suffers much harm.

But always remember the best training of all is the Word of God.

You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. 6“These words, which I am commanding you today, shall be on your heart. 7“You shall teach them diligently to your sons and shall talk of them when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise up. 8“You shall bind them as a sign on your hand and they shall be as frontals on your forehead. 9“You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates. Deuteronomy 6:5-9


God bless you my friends, Bob
Copyright: Robert West 2011

The Devil’s Gospel

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth …
God created man in His own image,
in the image of God He created him;
male and female He created them. Genesis 1:1-27

All flesh is not the same flesh:
but there is one kind of flesh of men,
another flesh of beasts,
another of fishes,
and another of birds.

There are also celestial bodies and bodies terrestrial:
but the glory of the celestial is one,
and the glory of the terrestrial is another.
1 Corinthians 15:39-40


Have you ever wondered why most people who believe in creationism
have difficulty defending their beliefs? Well, let’s talk about that.

There are a number of obvious reasons that cause believers to remain silent. The cards have been stacked against us by the enemies of the Creator. Once the false theory of evolution gained the upper hand by appealing to mens ignorance, lust, and pride; the enemies of God were not likely to allow contrary evidence. From the evolutionary viewpoint, the most effective responses to Creation are not evidence for evolution which is not available; but rather attack; attack; attack. Creationism is ignorant, evolution is scientific; teaching creation is teaching religion: a perceived church/state violation; and scientists who present a case against evolution, or for intelligent design are ridiculed, banished, and ostracized. These methods have worked so well that we now have an entire adult population that has been indoctrinated from their youth with the false teaching of evolution as fact. This leaves many confused with God's Word, and unprepared to defend The truth.

As a Biblical Christian, the verses above are accepted by me literally, by faith. Although there is evidence of this truth everywhere, unlike scientists, I do not need to prove what I believe. But the fact is that evolution is a highly preposterous theory that has not and cannot be proven scientifically. And furthermore I will contend here that atheistic religious beliefs were foundational in developing the theory. It is important to note that non-Christian scientists have presented a very compelling theory of intelligent design. Of course, most atheistic naturalist scientists are more intent on rebuking creation that they are with determining the truth scientifically. If not, why are they afraid to consider alternative theories? The answer to this question is simple, the alternative: a Creator is just not something they are willing to even remotely consider, regardless of any evidence presented; alternative theories; or evidence to the contrary regarding Darwinian evolution.

I realize Creation falls on deaf ears to the atheistic mentality ... but what about Christians who have accepted the lie? And how do we protect our children? And what about those who are seeking Christ the Savior? This is a major barrier for many.

Let’s look again at what God’s Word teaches.

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth … God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” This statement is clear. It cannot be misunderstood. There is no interpretation or explanation needed. Theistic evolution is also foolishness … in that it is only an attempt to pander to evolution, the false wisdom of men.

God in response to evolution spoke back to us in advance through the apostle Paul. He gave us additional information here. Men are different than animals … men are different than fish … men are different from birds. They all have different flesh. That is why men cannot procreate with an animal of any kind. Men have bodies that are both celestial and terrestrial. A terrestrial body is an earthly body; and a celestial body is a heavenly body. This is contrary to evolution. We cannot accept both teachings. One is true, and the other is false. Either/ Or ... not both. No credible evidence has ever, or will ever be produced to prove God’s Word to be untrue. How can I say this with confidence? Because God’s Word is Truth, and it is clearly stated above. The only evidence I need is: God’s Word.

But what about evolution, what about the theory of evolution taught in our schools, hasn’t evolution been proven … you ask? NO! I say that evolution is based upon false logic, and outright animosity towards God and Biblical Creation were at the heart of Darwin’s theory, from its foundation, and the contempt for God continues to this day. Don’t misunderstand me though. Modern science has made many great discoveries in the past 200 years and in many cases evolutionary thinking played a key role in these discoveries, but that is not proof that men have evolved from mud; to a slug; to a monkey; and to a man. That is an absurd LIE.

I want you to try something now that I think will for many of you, prove my point. I want you to watch this short video clip. Watch this NOW. I realize it is a different language and not that appealing but be patient ... read the words through the clip. Now do you really think that the brain that created the technology that created this clip, and your eyes, and your ears that watched and listened; and that gave this boy the ability to put those words together in song; and at the same time controls your emotions to the point that you may have been moved to tears when you watched; evolved from mud to a slug to an ape to a man? Did your emotions, eyes, ears, logic, intelligence, and feelings and your brain really evolve from nothing? This boy is not about the survival of the fittest, but rather the weakest; a living testimony to the hearts and minds of men. Now look at the picture of the dirty little mud fish slug above ... now do you really believe that we evolved from that stupid slug or something much less developed??

Now back to the question in my previous post. “If you could talk to Satan, would he want you to believe in evolution … or Creation?” The answer to that one is obvious. Here are some questions about Darwin’s motivation. Was his theory spiritually motivated? Did he describe his work from a spiritual perspective? Cambridge Professor, Dr. Robert Clark explains that Darwin referred to evolution as “the devil’s gospel.”1 Darwin's perspective couldn't get much more spiritual, anti-God, anti-creation, or anti-Bible than that.

Darwin was dealing with the guilt of the conclusion in his mind that not only did he banish God from his life, but from the entire universe as well. Darwin believed he had killed God for everyone. His life was a long attempt to escape from the church, and escape from God. As a result, Darwin adopted a philosophy consistent with the rejection of God known as logical positivism which taught that only science, mathematics, and logic were meaningful for understanding facts and that religion, ethics, and metaphysics were meaningless. Once he accepted this philosophy, Darwin was hardly unbiased in his scientific methodology.2

Most people are not aware that when first published, Origin of Species was for the most part rejected by the scientific community which almost universally held to a belief in divine creation. “Darwin’s friend and supporter T.H. Huxley described Darwin’s dilemma as follows: “The supporters of Mr. Darwin’s views were numerically, extremely insignificant. There is not the slightest doubt that if a general council of the church scientific had been held at that time, we would have been condemned by an overwhelming majority.”3

Professor Marvin Lubenow expands upon the state of Darwin’s religious attitudes and motivations when he quotes from Neal Gillespie’s classic writing: “Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation.” "Gillespie notes that Darwin’s purpose was not just to establish the concept of evolution. Darwin’s master accomplishment was to convince the scientific world that it was unscientific to believe in supernatural causation. His purpose was to “ungod” the universe. Darwin was a positivist. He convinced scientists that it was unscientific to deal with God or creation in any way. To be scientific, they must study the world as if God did not exist … Keep in mind, Darwin was not an atheist. He did not exterminate God. He just evicted God from the universe which God had created. With God out of the picture, evolution fell into place rather easily, since evolution seemed to be the only other viable alternative. Evolution was not an attack against theism, but rather a specific attack against the God of the Bible. Obviously atheists are naturally evolutionists, but evolution is as comfortable with theism as it is with atheism. An evolutionist is free to choose any god he wishes, as long as it is not the God of the Bible. The gods allowed by evolution are private, subjective, and artificial. They make no absolute or ethical demands. On the other hand, the god of the Bible is the Creator, Sustainer, Savior, and Judge. All are responsible to Him. He has an agenda that conflicts with that of sinful humans. Evolution was originally designed as a specific attack against the god of the Bible, and it remains so to this day. While Theistic Evolutionists seem blind to this fact, the secular world sees it very clearly."4

Modern scientists face the same dilemma as Darwin and they follow the same formula he established. Science is all powerful and the only knowledge that is legitimate to them comes from science, mathematics, and their teachings, even if they make it up. To say they are arrogant would probably be received as a compliment by many. Our modern day version of this application of arrogance is the recent unscientific promotion of the premise that "man caused global warming" will destroy the world as we know it in the next 100 years. Even after it has most recently been demonstrated foolishness and outright deception, some still cling to it as established fact and are ready to surrender their freedom and way of life for the false cause.

Just yesterday I heard an advocate of global warming argue that the premise was only misnamed global warming but now the name has been transformed by the enlightened to a new term: “climate change” and she contended that the best thing we can all do is become vegans or vegetarians. Not eating meat apparently speaks to the environmentalists twisted goals and logic. Connecting the dots from vegan to climate change is just one more loony left wing premise. There is nothing wrong with a going on a vegetable diet, as my doctor has suggested for me, but these tactics are dishonest and criminal. Even Christian churches have fallen for this idiocy as evidenced by Saddleback Churche's vegetarian play on Biblical words "The Daniel Plan." Isn’t the term “climate change” more all-encompassing and convenient than global warming? No more need to manipulate statistics and create false reports anymore. Whatever happens … climate change describes the supposed looming disaster that always leads us (the unenlightened) to their desired end … that being: whatever the more highly evolved determine to be best for all of us ... and of course the funding of their grants to research their latest tangent.

For these same scientists, evolution is accepted as a philosophical necessity more than a scientific conviction. Dr. Clark Pinnock points this out when he says: “The reason evolution is believed and taught as a fact is not due to the evidence for it, but rather due to the need for it.”5 Dr. Greg Bahnsen agrees: “Evolution is not a testable scientific hypothesis at all, but rather a philosophical paradigm preferred by some men to discredit the biblical doctrine of Creation."6 Dr. George Wald, the Nobel Prize winning biologist at Harvard agrees: “The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative was to believe in a single primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. For this reason many scientists a century ago chose to regard the belief in spontaneous generation as a philosophical necessity … Most modern biologists, having viewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, are yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing.”7

The grandson of “Darwin’s bulldog” Thomas Henry Huxley; the famous novelist Aldous Huxley openly explains the motivation of these men in his book "Ends and Means" ... "I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently I assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficultly to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. Most ignorance is invincible ignorance. We don’t know because we don’t want to know. And the Philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in a way they find most advantageous to themselves. For myself, as no doubt, for most of my contemporaries also, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. This liberation is political, economic, and sexual; and like many other modern materialists I found evolutionary belief quite satisfying.”8

So in closing, why do you think these men were so intent on discrediting Creation, and Jesus Christ the God of the Bible? I am convinced that the god of this world who has blinded the minds of the unbelieving was guiding them. Since Darwin referred to Evolution as: “the devil’s gospel” … I would contend that Darwin was in fact Satan’s advocate, or a sort of scientific antichrist.


For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened … professing to be wise, they became fools. Romans 1:18-22

God Bless you my friends, Bob
Copyright: Robert West 2011

1. Clark and Bales, Why Scientists Accept Evolution p.45
2. Ankerberg and Weldon, Darwin’s Leap of Faith, p. 127
3. Robert E. D. Clark, Darwin; Before and After, p. 62
4. Dr. Marvin L. Lubenow, Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils, p. 187-189
5. Clark Pennock, Set Forth Your Case p. 38
6. Greg Bahnsen, The Challenge of Design p. 87
7. R. Clyde McCone, Three Levels of Anthropological Objection to Evolution, Creation Research society Quarterly, March 1973, p. 208
8. M Bowden, The Rise of Evolution Fraud (An Exposure of its Roots) p. 216,218